Two important points about exclusion requests. First, there is no time limit. Exclusion requests can be filed at any time, but they must be on specific forms.

Second, foreign producers and US importers need not apply. The only entities that can request an exclusion are the actual US companies using the steel or aluminum in their production process.

The second document is the attached extensive two part retaliation list issued by the EC in response to the Steel and Aluminum tariffs. TWO EU RETALIATION LISTS The document speaks for itself and is very extensive covering numerous different US products exported to the EC.

According to the EU, Part A of the list includes products worth €2.8 billion, which the EU can target with tariffs of 25 percent at any moment after notifying the list to the WTO.

Part B lists those products which would be targeted only after three years. This is because WTO rules allow immediate retaliation only on that amount of trade for which EU steel exports to the U.S. have not increased over the past years.

If anyone has any questions about these documents, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

US CHINA TRADE WAR STEEL AND ALUMINUM TARIFFS UPDATE MARCH 9, 2018

Dear Friends,

On March 8th, Trump issued his tariffs of 25% on imported steel and 10% on imported aluminum.

As explained below, there are some exceptions, but now let the retaliation trade games begin.

The chickens have come home to roost. For too many years, the average American has not been educated on the benefits of trade. With $2.3 trillion in US exports in 2017, the United States has a lot to lose in this trade war.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

The tariffs will take effect March 23rd “with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption and shall continue in effect, unless such actions are expressly reduced, modified, or terminated.”

The terms “entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption” are Customs terms, which means if steel products have not been entered/imported or withdrawn from a Customs bonded warehouse by 12:01AM on March 23rd, the tariffs will apply to those goods.

A Customs bonded warehouse is where products are stored before entry/importation of the products, in this case, steel and aluminum products, into the United States. So long as the Steel and Aluminum has been entered/imported into the US before March 23rd, it will be ok, but afterwards the products will be hit by a tariff.

The actual steel products covered by the tariff are:

For the purposes of this proclamation, “steel articles” are defined at the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 6-digit level as: 7206.10 through 7216.50, 7216.99 through 7301.10, 7302.10, 7302.40 through 7302.90, and 7304.10 through 7306.90, including any subsequent revisions to these HTS

This probably means that all steel products will be covered, but (2) provides:

“In order to establish increases in the duty rate on imports of steel articles, subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS is modified as provided in the Annex to this proclamation. Except as otherwise provided in this proclamation, or in notices published pursuant to clause 3 of this proclamation, all steel articles imports specified in the Annex shall be subject to an additional 25 percent ad valorem rate of duty with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on March 23, 2018.

Emphasis added.

If this Steel case follows the recent Solar Cells 201 Proclamation process, we will not see the Annex until the Presidential Proclamation is published in the Federal Register in a few days.

But there are doorways for countries and companies to get their products out. For countries that have a “security relationship” with the United States, not Russia or China, they can negotiate a deal with the US. As the Proclamation specifically states in paragraph 9:

Any country with which we have a security relationship is welcome to discuss with the United States alternative ways to address the threatened impairment of the national security caused by imports from that country. Should the United States and any such country arrive at a satisfactory alternative means to address the threat to the national security such that I determine that imports from that country no longer threaten to impair the national security, I may remove or modify the restriction on steel articles imports from that country and, if necessary, make any corresponding adjustments to the tariff as it applies to other countries as our national security interests require.

Also within 10 days of the Proclamation, Commerce is to come up with an exclusion process to get products out of the tariffs, if the products are not produced in the US and if the exclusion request is made by a US company affected by the Tariff. Foreign companies need not apply, only their US importers and more importantly the US steel using customers can apply. The Proclamation specifically states in subparagraphs 3 and 4:

“…..The Secretary . . . is hereby authorized to provide relief from the additional duties set forth in clause 2 of this proclamation for any steel article determined not to be produced in the United States in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or of a satisfactory quality and is also authorized to provide such relief based upon specific national security considerations. Such relief shall be provided for a steel article only after a request for exclusion is made by a directly affected party located in the United States. , , ,

Within 10 days after the date of this proclamation, the Secretary shall issue procedures for the requests for exclusion described in clause 3 of this proclamation. . . .”

We probably will not know more about the exclusion process until Commerce publishes a notice in the Federal Register.

THE TRADE CHICKENS COME HOME TO ROOST

Although there is an out for negotiations, we can expect other countries, including China and the EC, to retaliate against the steel and aluminum tariffs issued by the US.

But the real lesson of these tariffs is the failure over many past Presidencies to educate the average American about the benefits of trade. President Trump pushed on by Breitbart refers to free traders as globalists. Apparently, any person who believes in free trade does so because he supports the interests of the World and not the United States.

But free traders are not globalists. They strongly believe in free trade because that is in the interest of the United States and the average American. Free trade has caused the US economy to grow multiple times creating millions of jobs for Americans.

The average American simply does not realize that the US exported in 2017 $2.3 trillion in goods and services, $1.5 trillion in goods. Half of all agricultural products are exported and one third of Iowa corn is exported to Mexico.

Pundits who favor the tariffs point to the rust belt states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that voted for Trump, but ignore the agricultural states of Kansas, Iowa, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and many other states that voted for Trump. These pundits ignore the farmers.

But of that $1.5 trillion in goods, only $132 billion was agricultural products, exports of industrial supplies and materials at $462 billion and exports of capital goods except automotive at $532 billion were much more important. Exports of Automotive vehicles and parts at $157 billion, consumer goods at $197 billion and export of other goods at $62 billion were also very important.

See the article on my blog, www.uschinatradewar.com, “Trump and Many Americans Simply Do Not Realize How Much the US Exports” and the Commerce Department report on 2017 Imports and Exports attached to that article.

$2.3 trillion in US exports are a lot of jobs and if these tariffs are the first step to a global trade war, many Americans are going to be very badly hurt by Trump’s trade war.

MARCH 3, 2018 UPDATE

Dear Friends,

Trump has his trade war, but it is not just against China. This trade war is the United States against the World. On March 2nd President Trump announced tariffs of 25% on steel imports and 10% on aluminum imports under Section 232 National Security law. Section 232, however, is not a trade exception, such as 201 or antidumping and countervailing duty cases, approved by the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) so that gives the other countries the right to retaliate and they will retaliate.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

TRUMP’S TRADE WAR AGAINST THE WORLD

On March 1, 2018, President Trump announced that next week he will impose under Section 232, National Security law, tariffs of 25% against Steel imports and 10% on Aluminum imports.

Many countries around the World, including the EU, Canada, Mexico, China and other countries, immediately threatened trade retaliation against US exports. Europe is talking about tariffs on US imports of Harley Davidson Motorcycles, Jack Daniels Bourbon and blue jeans. China is talking tariffs on US agricultural exports, such a Sorghum Grain and Soybeans.

To see the advice the President is getting one has to look no further than the statements by USTR Robert Lighthizer on February 27th, on the Laura Ingraham show on Fox News stating that it was ridiculous to think that we were going to get into a trade war with China and other countries over the 232 cases. But the reaction of numerous countries to Trump’s announcement of tariffs on Steel and Aluminum imports shows that Lighthizer’s statement was ridiculous. Lighthizer is Trump’s principle advisor on trade laws and trade agreements, but this statement shows how Lighthizer truly misjudged the situation.

The major problem is that Lighthizer and Trump are focused on the trade deficits rather than the enormous size of US exports at $2.4 trillion. With $2.4 trillion in exports, there is a lot of targets for retaliation.

On March 2, 2018, Trump tweeted, “trade wars are good, and easy to win.” But in wars be they trade wars or real wars, no one really wins everybody loses.

Both the Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily both disagree with the Trump trade war. On March 2, 2018, the Wall Street Journal stated in an editorial entitled “Trump’s Tariﬀ Folly, His tax on aluminum and steel will hurt the economy and his voters”, stated:

Donald Trump made the biggest policy blunder of his Presidency Thursday by announcing that next week he’ll impose tariﬀs of 25% on imported steel and 10% on aluminum. This tax increase will punish American workers, invite retaliation that will harm U.S. exports, divide his political coalition at home, anger allies abroad, and undermine his tax and regulatory reforms. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 1.7% on the news, as investors absorbed the self-inﬂicted folly.

Mr. Trump has spent a year trying to lift the economy from its Obama doldrums, with considerable success. Annual GDP growth has averaged 3% in the past nine months if you adjust for temporary factors, and on Tuesday the ISM manufacturing index for February came in at a gaudy 60.8. American factories are humming, and consumer and business conﬁdence are soaring.

Apparently, Mr. Trump can’t stand all this winning. His tariﬀs will beneﬁt a handful of companies, at least for a while, but they will harm many more. “We have with us the biggest steel companies in the United States. They used to be a lot bigger, but they’re going to be a lot bigger again,” Mr. Trump declared in a meeting Thursday at the White House with steel and aluminum executives.

No, they won’t. The immediate impact will be to make the U.S. an island of high-priced steel and aluminum. The U.S. companies will raise their prices to nearly match the tariﬀs while snatching some market share. The additional proﬁts will ﬂow to executives in higher bonuses and shareholders, at least until the higher prices hurt their steel- and aluminum-using customers. Then U.S. steel and aluminum makers will be hurt as well.

Mr. Trump seems not to understand that steel-using industries in the U.S. employ some 6.5 million Americans, while steel makers employ about 140,000. Transportation industries, including aircraft and autos, account for about 40% of domestic steel consumption, followed by packaging with 20% and building construction with 15%. All will have to pay higher prices, making them less competitive globally and in the U.S.

Instead of importing steel to make goods in America, many companies will simply import the ﬁnished product made from cheaper steel or aluminum abroad. Mr. Trump fancies himself the savior of the U.S. auto industry, but he might note that Ford Motor shares fell 3% Thursday and GM’s fell 4%. U.S. Steel gained 5.8%. Mr. Trump has handed a giant gift to foreign car makers, which will now have a cost advantage over Detroit. How do you think that will play in Michigan in 2020?

The National Retail Federation called the tariﬀs a “tax on American families,” who will pay higher prices for canned goods and even beer in aluminum cans. Another name for this is the Trump voter tax.

The economic damage will quickly compound because other countries can and will retaliate against U.S. exports. Not steel, but against farm goods, Harley-Davidson motorcycles, Cummins engines, John Deere tractors, and much more.

Foreign countries are canny enough to know how to impose maximum political pain on Republican Senators and Congressmen in an election year by targeting exports from their states and districts. Has anyone at the White House political shop thought this through?

Then there’s the diplomatic damage, made worse by Mr. Trump’s use of Section 232 to claim a threat to national security. In the process Mr. Trump is declaring a unilateral exception to U.S. trade agreements that other countries won’t forget and will surely emulate.

The national security threat from foreign steel is preposterous because China supplies only 2.2% of U.S. imports and Russia 8.7%. But the tariﬀs will whack that menace to world peace known as Canada, which supplies 16%. South Korea, which Mr. Trump needs for his strategy against North Korea, supplies 10%, Brazil 13% and Mexico 9%.

Oh, and Canada buys more American steel than any other country, accounting for 50% of U.S. steel exports. Mr. Trump is punishing our most important trading partner in the middle of a Nafta renegotiation that he claims will result in a much better deal. Instead he is taking a machete to America’s trade credibility. Why should Canada believe a word he says?

***

Mr. Trump announced his intentions Thursday, so there’s still time to reconsider. GOP Senators Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Ben Sasse (Nebraska) spoke up loudly against the tariﬀs, but a larger business and labor chorus is required. Mr. Trump is a bona ﬁde protectionist so he won’t be dissuaded by arguments about comparative advantage. But perhaps he will heed the message from the falling stock market, and from the harm he will do to the economy, his voters, and his Presidency.

The Investors Business Daily followed suit stating in a March 2, 2018 editorial entitled “Sorry, Mr. President: Your Trade Protectionism Will Cost The U.S. Dearly”:

Trade: Protectionism is a political feel-good policy that does nothing for the economy. It’s a big cost with very few tangible benefits. That’s why President Trump has made a big mistake in imposing big tariffs on steel and aluminum.

We understand, of course, that President Trump feels beholden to his constituencies in the U.S. who have been hurt by foreign competition, particularly in basic industries like steel and aluminum. But the 25% tariff on steel and 10% tariff on aluminum that Trump seeks to impose will lead to higher prices for all, the loss of thousands of jobs and a political-crony windfall for a handful of big companies. . . .

We have no doubt that what Trump says is true. But if so, it should be remedied through trade talks, not a trade war.

And make no mistake: The broad nature of Trump’s tariffs, hitting all exporters to the U.S., will invite some kind of retaliation from those who’ve been hit.

Already, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker is threatening to respond in kind: “We will not sit idly while our industry is hit with unfair measures that put thousands of European jobs at risk,” he said. “The European Union will react firmly and commensurately to defend our interests.” . . .

Beijing is already looking at imposing trade penalties on U.S. sales of sorghum there, and may soon also target our sales of soy, too. Meanwhile, India, emboldened by the U.S. turn toward protectionism, might use Trump’s moves as a reason to protect its own wheat and rice sectors from U.S. imports.

So the steel and aluminum industry’s gains will be the loss of others.

Trump’s justification for tariffs is “national security.” But, as some have pointed out, the U.S. military uses only about 3% of domestic steel output, and much of our imported steel comes from allies like Canada. So the “threat” really isn’t much of one.

Of greater concern is what the higher prices for steel and aluminum — remember, a tariff is actually a tax — will do to our domestic economy.

As the R Street Institute think tank reminds us, “According to 2015 U.S. Census data, steel mills employ about 140,000 Americans, while steel-consuming industries, including automakers and other manufacturers who rely on imported steel, employ more than 5 million. It is estimated that nearly 200,000 jobs and $4 billion in wages were lost during the 18 months during 2002 and 2003 that President George W. Bush imposed tariffs on imported steel …” . . .

In short, trade protection, especially tariffs, is a very bad deal for consumers and workers. But it’s very profitable for politically connected corporations. That’s why the financial markets melted down on Thursday. Will this event mark the end of the Trump bull market? It’s too soon to tell, but it bears watching. While most stocks fell on Thursday, steel and aluminum shares had a great day. Good for them, bad for the rest of us.

Maybe so, but what’s truly tragic is that Trump’s penchant for trade protection will in part offset the benefits to the economy from other free-market policies he has put in place, including tax cuts, deregulation, withdrawal from the Paris Accords on climate change and badly needed changes to ObamaCare.

We understand why he walked away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and reopened NAFTA. He thought they were flawed, and they were.

But protectionism is a bad road to travel. Let’s hope this move by President Trump is merely a negotiating ploy, and not a long-term policy. If it’s the latter, buckle up — we’re in for a bumpy ride.

CNN has called Trump ignorant on trade, but the only one more protectionist than Donald Trump is the Democrats, who were all applauding Trump’s decision to impose tariffs. In truth Trump’s ignorance reflects the ignorance of many Americans, who simply believe that the US does not export much and all imports are unfairly traded because they are all dumped.

For years, however, the Commerce Department has created dumping rates by using a policy called zeroing, which allowed Commerce to create dumping rates when there simply were none. Also with regards to China, Commerce creates dumping rates because it refuses to use actual prices or costs in China, instead using surrogate values from import statistics in 5 to 10 different countries to construct a cost.

Commerce, in effect, is a hanging judge. That would not matter but when that faulty premise is used to justify a trade war than the US truly does have problems.

Americans also are ignorant because they simply do not understand that in 2017 the US exported $2.4 trillion in goods and services, $1.6 trillion in goods. See the Commerce Department report below in my post on US exports.

That reality means that foreign countries have many, many retaliation targets against US exports. This trade war will not be pretty and many Americans and American companies will be hurt. No one wins a trade war. Trade wars are a lose lose situation.

US CHINA TRADE WAR FEBRUARY 24, 2018

Dear Friends,

In my last blog post, I asked whether President Trump’s economic juggernaut could be stopped by a trade war. At the start of the Trump Administration, economic growth was a meager about 2% and there was a true unemployment crisis. But one way to cure the economy and the trade problem is by making US companies more competitive and that is just what Trump and the Republicans have done with their tax bill and cutting regulations. Economic growth is approaching 3% or higher. Unemployment, including Black and Hispanic unemployment, is the lowest in decades.

In January, however President Trump had not yet started a trade war yet. What a difference one month can make. In January President Trump imposed large tariffs on imports of solar cells and washing machines, wants to impose tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum pursuant to Commerce’s recommendations in section 232 National Security cases and wants to hammer China with more tariffs for intellectual property violations. It appears that President Trump wants to solve all his disputes with foreign countries by raising tariffs.

But as indicated below, Trump’s desire for more tariffs simply reflects the feeling of many Americans that tariffs should go up to protect various US industries because Trump and many Americans simply do not understand how much the US exports. The average American has been led to believe that imports are bad, exports are good and US exports very little. That is the reason for the trade deficits and, therefore, all imports must be unfairly traded. Trump’s and the average American’s belief is very dangerous thinking because it ignores the reality that the US in 2017 exported over $2 trillion in goods and services. People in glass houses should not throw tariff stones and the United States has a very big glass house. Belittling US exports is truly playing with trade war fire.

Trump and many average Americans do not understand what goes around comes around. Trump, in fact, is inviting trade retaliation and igniting a trade firestorm. In response to the self-initiation of the Aluminum Sheet case, the Chinese government has upped the game and responded with its own trade case against $1.25 billion of US agricultural exports of Sorghum Grain to China. There are strong indications that the Chinese government is looking at antidumping and countervailing duty cases against $13.9 billion in US exports of soybeans to China, which will equal to 10% of US agricultural exports in total.

Pursuant to WTO trade rules, the EC, Japan, Korea and China are all asking for trade compensation for the Solar and Washing Machine tariffs imposed on their imports, and these same countries are sure to retaliate if Trump issues high tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum from these same countries.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that the US agricultural industry is hurting and one of the reasons is trade disputes and now trade retaliation. President Trump and many Americans should be careful what they wish for, because they may get it.

But there are rays of sunlight in the US economy, President Trump and Vice President Pence have made noises about possibly rejoining the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”). More importantly, the Trump tax cuts and cut in regulations has made US producers much more competitive and created a manufacturing renaissance. A trade war, however, could kill the economic golden goose.

Exclusions are a big issue in the Section 201 Solar case and in a stunner the ITC voted against Boeing in the Bombardier Civil Aircraft case. More trade cases are being filed against imports.

But there is a remedy to trade problems that is not protectionist and does not invite retaliation. That is making US companies more competitive. As stated below, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies, a program personally approved by President Reagan, works and is able to save companies injured by imports. Since 1984, the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, which I am involved in, has been able to save 80% of the companies that got into the program. If you save the companies, you save the jobs that go with those companies.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S ADMINISTRATION APPEARS TO BE PREPARING FOR A TRADE WAR AND THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT HAS ALREADY CREATED A RETALIATION LIST WITH AGRICULTURE BEING THE NUMBER ONE TARGET

As stated above, up to now, President Trump has not started a trade war, but that appears to be changing. As stated below, on January 21st, President Trump announced large tariffs on imports of solar cells and washing machines and the target countries are already asking for trade compensation, tariffs on US exports. Every day President Trump appears to use the tariff hammer to deal with different foreign policy disputes and it looks like tariffs on imported steel and aluminum products are coming.

On February 4th, in a meeting with State Department, Defense Department, and Homeland Security officials, Trump promised to use tariffs to deal with immigration problems and put tariffs on the goods of countries and sanction others that refuse to take their citizens/nationals back upon deportation. Trump stated:

“But if they don’t take them back, we’ll put sanctions on the countries. We’ll put tariffs on the countries. They’ll take them back so fast your head will spin. We’ll just tariff their goods coming in, and they’ll take them back in two seconds. You have a lot of people from those countries, and they’ll take them back.”

This is just one example where President Trump indicates his strong belief that Tariffs on imports are the weapon to use to pressure countries to fall into line with US policy interests.

Moreover, President Trump has promised his base during the election to be very tough on trade. But President Trump unfortunately does not realize there is a price to pay for a trade war—retaliation against US exports.

DESPITE THE REAGAN WARNING MANY AMERICANS APPARENTLY WANT INCREASED TARIFFS TO PROTECT US INDUSTRIES EVEN IF US EXPORTS GET SMASHED

But President Trump’s favorable view of tariffs on imports may simply reflect the beliefs of many Americans that trade is bad. Exports are good, but all imports are bad. Therefore, if there is a trade deficit, that must mean that trade and imports are hurting US industry because all imports are unfairly traded and the solution is simply put more trade barriers up.

Such a way of thinking is perpetuated by a Commerce Department that finds dumping in almost 100% of the cases, especially against China, because Commerce uses fake numbers, surrogate values from 5 to 10 different countries, to create dumping margins in Chinese cases. Literally, over the past few decasdes, the number of cases in which the Commerce Department reached a no dumping and no countervailing duty case, turning the case off can be counted on less than two hands. Commerce is a hanging judge, but when that hanging judge creates a myth that all imports into the US are dumped and subsidized, that is when real probelms begin. Although Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, once stated that 70% of all customers are outside the United States, that point apparently has been forgotten and does not register with the average American, who thinks that putting up high tariffs will solve the trade problems and protect US manufacturing.

On January 26, 2018, Rasmussen Reports in an article entitled “Americans Still Favor Use of Protective Tariffs” stated that polls show that Americans favor tariffs:

“President Trump this week imposed heavy tariffs on foreign manufacturers of washing machines and solar panels to protect U.S. businesses. Americans by a two-to-one margin think tariffs are a good way to go.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 50% of American Adults believe the federal government should place tariffs on goods from countries that pay very low wages to their workers. Twenty-six percent (26%) oppose tariffs on such goods even though the low wages mean these manufactured items often cost less than comparable American products. One-in-four (24%), however, are undecided.”

On February 6, 2018, Breitbart reported on the Rasmussen Poll in an article entitled “Americans Increasingly Support Tariffs to Protect US Against Globalization”, stating:

“Americans are increasingly supportive of tariffs on cheap, imported goods from foreign countries to protect American industries and workers against wild globalization.

In a poll by Rasmussen Reports, roughly 50 percent of Americans said the federal government should “place tariffs on goods from countries that pay very low wages to their workers,” as opposed to only 26 percent of Americans who said tariffs should not be imposed on foreign countries.

About 24 percent of Americans said they were “not sure” if the government should use tariffs to protect American industries.

Additionally, a plurality of Americans, about 44 percent, said the federal government is not doing “enough” to protect U.S. manufacturers and businesses from foreign competition” from globalization which has been exacerbated by endless multinational free trade agreements supported by the Democratic and Republican party establishments.

The support for protective tariffs has increased from two years ago, in 2015, when 47 percent of Americans polled by Rasmussen Reports said the federal government should place tariffs on foreign countries dumping cheap, imported products in the U.S.

In that 2015 poll, a plurality of Americans, about 40 percent, said free trade agreements like NAFTA and KORUS “take jobs away” from Americans.

The support for tariffs is positive news for President Trump’s administration, which is combatting globalization by imposing tariffs to protect American industries. In the Trump administration’s latest “America First” trade move, the White House placed a 30 percent tariff on imported solar products.

The tariff, as Breitbart News reported, has already resulted in a Chinese solar company announcing plans to build a solar plant in the U.S. rather than overseas.

The Trump administration’s pro-American trade initiatives are a break from over two decades of globalist trade agendas of past administrations under President George W. Bush and President Obama. For years, both political establishments have joined forces to push multinational free trade deals that outsource and offshore Americans’ jobs to foreign nations.

As Breitbart News reported in 2016, South Carolina is just one example of a state that was devastated by NAFTA, with the state losing about one-third of its manufacturing jobs since 1994 when the free trade agreement was signed.

In Trump’s most significant pushback against the Democratic and Republican apparatus on free trade and global initiatives, rather than individual nation-state efforts, he ended the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement and the Paris Climate Agreement. . . .”

But President Ronald Reagan understood that the there is a price to pay for tariffs on imports—retaliation against US exports. As President Reagan stated in a speech on June 28, 1986:

“That’s because international trade is one of those issues that politicians find an unending source of temptation. Like a 5-cent cigar or a chicken in every pot, demanding high tariffs or import restrictions is a familiar bit of flimflammery in American politics. But cliches and demagoguery aside, the truth is these trade restrictions badly hurt economic growth. . . .

We had an excellent example of this in our own history during the Great Depression. Most of you are too young to remember this, but not long after the stock market crash of 1929, the Congress passed something called the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Many economists believe it was one of the worst blows ever to our economy. By crippling free and fair trade with other nations, it internationalized the Depression. It also helped shut off America’s export market, eliminating many jobs here at home and driving the Depression even deeper. . . .

But I think you all know the inherent danger here. A foreign government raises an unfair barrier; the United States Government is forced to respond. Then the foreign government retaliates; then we respond, and so on. The pattern is exactly the one you see in those pie fights in the old Hollywood comedies: Everything and everybody just gets messier and messier. The difference here is that it’s not funny. It’s tragic. Protectionism becomes destructionism; it costs jobs.”

Like Breitbart, many Americans believe that the US simply does not export much. The cost of President Trump’s protective tariffs, however, will be very high when US exports in 2017 were over $2 trillion. On January 21st, President Trump imposed high tariffs on imports of solar cells and washing machines. On January 24th, the Wall Street Journal in an editorial entitled “Trump Starts His Trade War”, stated:

“Can Donald Trump stand prosperity? Fresh from a government shutdown victory and with the U.S. economy on a roll, the President decided on Tuesday to kick oﬀ his long-promised war on imports—and American consumers. This isn’t likely to go the way Mr. Trump imagines.

“Our action today helps to create jobs in America for Americans,” Mr. Trump declared as he imposed tariﬀs on solar cells and washing machines. “You’re going to have a lot of plants built in the United States that were thinking of coming, but they would never have come unless we did this.”

The scary part is he really seems to believe this. And toward that end he imposed a new 30% tariﬀ on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and solar modules to beneﬁt two bankrupt companies, and a new 20%-50% tariﬀ on washing machines to beneﬁt Whirlpool Corp. The tariﬀs will hurt many more companies and people, and that’s before other countries retaliate.

The solar tariﬀ is a response to a petition ﬁled at the International Trade Commission by two U.S.-based manufacturers—Chinese-owned Suniva, which ﬁled for bankruptcy last year, and German-owned SolarWorld Americas, whose parent company ﬁled for bankruptcy last year. Under Section 201 of U.S. trade law, the companies don’t need to show evidence of dumping or foreign subsidies. They merely have to show they were hurt by imports, which is to say by competition.

The two companies once employed some 3,200 Americans. But the wider solar industry, which depends on price-competitive cells as a basic component, supports some 260,000 U.S. jobs.

Costs will rise immediately for this value-added part of the industry, which the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) says includes the manufacture of “metal racking, high tech inverters, machines that improve solar output by tracking the sun and other electrical products.”

The Journal reported Tuesday that the Trump tariﬀ may spur an unnamed panel manufacturer to invest in a new plant in Florida that will create 800 new jobs. But SEIA says it expects that the tariﬀ will cost 23,000 U.S. jobs this year alone. It will also mean that billions of dollars of solar investments are likely to be postponed or canceled. Utility companies facing green-energy mandates from state governments will also suﬀer as it gets more costly to deliver solar- produced electricity.

Mr. Trump will also make doing the laundry great again, or at least more expensive, with a new 20% tariﬀ on the ﬁrst 1.2 million imported washing machines every year. Above that the tariﬀ will go to 50%. Don’t even think about assembling a washer with foreign parts, which get whacked with a 50% tariﬀ above 50,000 imported units in the ﬁrst year. . . .

Manufacturers will also lose ﬂexibility in sourcing parts, which is critical to competitiveness. In South Carolina, where Samsung has a new $380 million appliance plant, the Trump tariﬀs aren’t welcome. Republican Gov. Henry McMaster is worried they’ll hurt the investment climate and invite retaliation.

Mr. Trump conducts trade policy as if U.S. trading partners have no recourse. With exports of $30.9 billion in 2016 and among the country’s highest level of exports per capita, South Carolina knows better. By justifying tariﬀs solely on the failure to compete, Mr. Trump is inviting other countries to do the same for their struggling companies. Their case at the World Trade Organization will also be a layup, allowing legal retaliation against U.S. exports.

By the way, if Mr. Trump thinks these new border taxes will hurt China, he’s mistaken again. China ran a distant fourth as a producer of solar cell and modules for the U.S. in 2017, after Malaysia, South Korea and Vietnam. Korea and Mexico are the two largest exporters of washing machines to the U.S. Mr. Trump’s tariﬀs are an economic blunderbuss that will hit America’s friends abroad and Mr. Trump’s forgotten men and women at home.”

TRUMP AND MANY AMERICANS SIMPLY DO NOT REALIZE HOW MUCH THE US EXPORTS AND PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES – –

President Trump and many Americans simply do not understand that despite the trade deficit, in 2017 total US exports of goods and services was $2.4 trillion. $1.622 trillion was US exports of goods, such as machinery, semiconductor chips and other items. China and other countries have many ripe targets for retaliation against the US.

On February 16, 2018, in the attached report, 2017 TRADE DATA, the U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Commerce Department reported that for full year 2017:

Exports were $2,329.3 billion in 2017, up $121.2 billion from 2016. Imports were $2,895.3 billion in 2017, up $182.5 billion from 2016.

In other words, US exports in 2017 of goods and services were $2.3 trillion and imports were $2.8 trillion creating a trade deficit of $566.0 billion. With regards to US exports, of the $2.3 trillion, export of services was $777.9 billion. Services include exports of financial services, express delivery, media and entertainment, distribution, telecommunications and computer service. Exports of goods was over $1.5 trillion, including industrial supplies and materials, crude oil, capital goods, including industrial machines and aircraft engines.

Although exports of agricultural products are important at about $132 billion, exports of industrial supplies and materials at $462 billion and exports of capital goods except automotive at $532 billion are much more important. Exports of Automotive vehicles and parts at $157 billion, consumer goods at $197 billion and export of other goods at $62 billion are also very important.

The focus of this piece is on exports because much to the surprise of many in the Trump Administration and possibly Trump himself and the average American, these US Commerce statistics establish that the US exports a lot of goods to various countries around the World and this creates tempting targets for retaliation and it is not just agriculture. People in glass houses should not throw stones and putting up tariff barriers to imports invites a trade retaliation firestorm.

When I mentioned US exports, one self-proclaimed conservative responded, “You mean apples.” Uh, no exports of industrial goods are much larger than exports of agricultural products.

If Trump creates a trade war, the United States has a lot to lose.

STATE OF THE UNION—TRADE RECIPROCITY OR MANAGED TRADE??

In his January 30, 2018 State of the Union address, President Trump did not mention trade much but stressed in his speech on his economic policies have helped bring back manufacturing to the US and increased US jobs, stating:

“3 million workers have already gotten tax cut bonuses — many of them thousands and thousands of dollars per worker. And it’s getting more every month, every week. Apple has just announced it plans to invest a total of $350 billion in America, and hire another 20,000 workers. And just a little while ago, ExxonMobil announced a $50 billion investment in the United States, just a little while ago. . . .

Very soon, auto plants and other plants will be opening up all over our country. This is all news Americans are totally unaccustomed to hearing. For many years, companies and jobs were only leaving us. But now they are roaring back. They’re coming back. They want to be where the action is. They want to be in the United States of America. That’s where they want to be. . . .”

But President Trump then went on to state about trade:

“America has also finally turned the page on decades of unfair trade deals that sacrificed our prosperity and shipped away our companies, our jobs, and our wealth. Our nation has lost its wealth, but we’re getting it back so fast. The era of economic surrender is totally over. From now on, we expect trading relationships to be fair and, very importantly, reciprocal.

We will work to fix bad trade deals and negotiate new ones. And they’ll be good ones, but they’ll be fair. And we will protect American workers and American intellectual property through strong enforcement of our trade rules.”

In response to the State of the Union address, on January 31st, John Brinkley in an article in Forbes entitled “With No Accomplishments To Report, Trump All But Skips Trade In SOTU” stated:

“Last week, at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, President Trump suggested he was open to rejoining the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That was surprising, given that one of the first things he did as president was withdraw the United States from it.

Last night, in his State of the Union address, he devoted all of 78 words to trade policy, including nothing he hadn’t said before, nothing about the TPP, nothing about NAFTA (which he recently called a “bad joke”) and nothing direct about the U.S. trade deficit.

“From now on,” he said, “we expect trading relationships to be fair and, very importantly, reciprocal.”

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “reciprocal” as “mutually corresponding.” If Trump wants every dollar of imports to be matched by a dollar of exports, that is an impossible goal. Tinkering around with NAFTA and the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, as his administration is doing, will have no appreciable effect on the U.S. trade deficits with Mexico and South Korea.

By now, he’s heard enough from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, his friends in the business world, even his own secretary of agriculture, about how important trade is to them. None of them asked him to renegotiate NAFTA or the Korea agreement.

None of them asked him to withdraw from the TPP. You’ll recall that it was delegates to the 2016 Democratic Convention who held up “No TPP” signs and that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders ran away from the agreement as though it were a rattlesnake.

Trump and Sanders were dead wrong about the TPP and about trade in general, but at least they believed what they said. Clinton, on the other hand, was dead wrong, and she knew it.

“We will work to fix bad trade deals and negotiate new ones,” Trump said last night. Does he still believe this strategy is going to lead to reciprocal trade? Or is he just saying what his base wants to hear? . . . .

Bottom line: Trump’s State of the Union claims that “America has also finally turned the page on decades of unfair trade deals” notwithstanding, he has yet to make good on any of his trade-related threats and promises. We still have all the trade deals we had a year ago, and the U.S. trade deficit has increased.”

On February 12th in an article entitled “Trump Says US Will impose A Reciprocal Tax on Imports”, Breitbart reported:

“President Donald Trump said on Monday that the U.S. government will impose a “reciprocal tax” on imports from countries that levy tariffs against American made goods.

“We’re going to charge countries outside of our country–countries that take advantage of the United States, some of them are so-called allies but they’re not allies on trade,” Trump said during a White House meeting on infrastructure. “We’re going to be doing very much a reciprocal tax and you’ll be hearing about that during the week and coming months.”

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross applauded the idea, saying that the U.S. needs to “claw back” the revenue other countries raise by taxing U.S. products.

The U.S. has very low tariffs compared with some of our biggest trading partners. The trade-weighted average of U.S. tariffs is just 2.4 percent. China’s is 4.4 percent.”

While Congress has the authority to set taxes and tariffs, the law authorizes the president to unilaterally impose tariffs in certain circumstances. In January, for example, the administration announced that it would impose tariffs on washing machines and solar products. The administration could potentially expand its use of these types of sanctions instead of waiting on Congress to pass new tariffs.”

Under the Constitution, however, the Congress controls trade, not the President and any new reciprocal tariff would probably have to go through Congress, which would not agree to such a new law. On January 30th, Politico reported in an article entitled “Republicans seek to Tame Trump on Trade”:

“The GOP has long been a party of free traders. During the past two years of President Barack Obama’s presidency, Senate Republicans labored to pass a bill giving him the ability to quickly negotiate new trade deals. Now they have a president of their own party who prefers to scrap trade deals and slap tariffs on other nations.

Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who led the fight to give Obama so-called Trade Promotion Authority, said he wants to hear Trump “extrapolate” concrete policies, because “right now they’re just suggestions.”

“I’m not uncomfortable. But I’m not comfortable either,” Hatch said of Trump’s trade stance. “I’m a free-trade guy. And I believe that this ought to be a free-trade country, especially when it comes to NAFTA and our hemisphere.”

Republican sources said GOP senators’ disagreements with Trump on trade surface far more often in party lunches than what the president said on Twitter or the chaotic story of the day from within the White House. Senators will often wait to complain about Trump’s policies until Tuesdays, when Vice President Mike Pence often visits the GOP lunch, hoping that bending Pence’s ear will help moderate Trump.

And in some cases, Trump has listened. His decision to impose tariffs on solar panels wasn’t as severe as some senators had feared. And Trump opened the door last week to re-engaging on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive deal negotiated by Obama with Pacific Rim countries that Trump rejected shortly after taking office. The Trump administration has also sought to soothe some senators over NAFTA in recent weeks, according to GOP senators.”

But if by reciprocity, Trump means busting up barriers to US exports, that is fine with me and fine with President Reagan. President Reagan and many successive Presidents have taken aggressive enforcement actions to break down barriers to US exports and investment. If China has high tariffs on certain exports or bars US exports or investment in certain sectors, why should the US open up its border to Chinese imports and investment in those sectors?

But the major problem with such a new reciprocal tariff is the WTO Agreement and the bedrock agreement of Most Favored Nation. The MFN principle provides that once a country becomes part of the WTO, with its general tariffs, it must treat all imports equally and cannot discriminate against imports from different countries, except with a Section 201 Escape Clause case or if dumping, subsidization or other unfair trade practices are involved. Thus, a reciprocal tariff will invite retaliation by foreign countries pursuant to the WTO Agreement. That is why many knowledgeable persons in the trade field have pushed for free trade agreements that lower tariffs, where the US has much to gain.

But because of his focus on trade deficits, if Trump means managed trade, not free trade, to reduce trade deficits, which means putting up high tariff walls to imports to equalize competition, count me and many other countries out, which will have no inclination to negotiate a bilateral trade deal with the US.

THE US BUILT THE WTO FREE TRADE MODEL THAT TRUMP APPARENTLY WANTS TO TEAR DOWN

On February 6, 2018, in an article entitled “US Leadership in International Trade: Recalibration or Retreat?” in The Diplomat, Mercy Kuo interviewed Ambassador Rufus Yerxa, president of the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) and deputy director general of the WTO from 2002 to 2013. On a personal note, I used to work with Ambassador Yerxa many years ago at the International Trade Commission. During this interview, Ambassador Yerxa made two very important points about the Trump trade policy:

“Is the U.S. retreating from or recalibrating its leadership role in international trade?

There is clearly a significant danger for the United States and for world trade generally if the Trump administration applies its concept of economic nationalism in the wrong way – by building trade barriers in sectors where we are uncompetitive, withdrawing from our trade alliances, or starting trade wars with excessive use of unilateral tariffs or other forms of trade retaliation. The dangers are three-fold: first, we will be turning inward and losing our competitiveness; second, by shelving our existing preferential free-trade arrangements just when our competitors are expanding theirs, we will lose our competitive position in export markets; and third, by abandoning WTO principles and acting unilaterally, we will make it more likely that other countries will write global trade standards without us and further isolate us from the global economy.

So far, the Trump administration’s rhetoric on this idea of economic nationalism has far exceeded its actions. But the administration’s worrying belief in mercantilist trade polices as a panacea for all our economic ills runs the risk of moving our country decisively in the direction outlined above. In the end, such a philosophy may cause our economy and our workers far more harm than good. American industries are willing to support a tougher line on enforcement of trade rules, as well as a more resolute stand against the nationalistic, unfair trade, and investment policies of China. But these things need to be done in the context of our broader support for the open trading system we led the world in building. If we send the signal that we do not believe in that system – even though it is there because of our leadership – we will lose the support we have built over 70 years for free and fair trade, and with it we will lose our leverage to shape the future of globalization.

What might the World Trade Organization (WTO) look like without U.S. involvement?

It is not a very pretty thought. The WTO system was designed to reflect core U.S. values, such as non- discrimination, transparency, and respect for the rule of law. These values are embedded in the organization’s rules, and help to commit other countries to the basic ideals of free market economics that America was built upon. For example, the WTO has some fairly effective rules about subsidy practices, dumping, and non-tariff measures (such as technical barriers to trade). These are important safeguards for U.S. industries.

For the U.S. to disengage from the WTO system, particularly at this critical moment in the globalization process, would leave the door open for politically influential countries such as China and Russia to push a trade model based much more on state-run capitalism and authoritarian economics than on our free market principles. This could pose a long-term problem that could take decades to repair. In fact, it took decades for us to push the Europeans in the right direction on state intervention, and the WTO’s predecessor, the GATT, was an important tool in that effort. Now the Europeans have a respectable state aids code and have adopted far greater discipline on agriculture subsidies. But if China, Russia, and others with less attachment to free market economics become the dominant force in the WTO, the Europeans themselves could be drawn back towards their earlier model, just as a matter of survival! That would not be a good world for Americans.”

AGRICULTURE HAVING A HARD YEAR BECAUSE OF TRUMP’S TRADE POLICY

The argument that consumers will be hurt by rising import prices simply carries no weight either with the Trump Administration or the US Congress. If prices go up a few dollars at Wal Mart, no one in Washington DC other than the economic intellectuals care. What does carry weight, however, is the strong argument that trade protectionism seriously damages US companies, including agriculture, and the strong and justified fear that many US companies, including US agriculture and manufacturing companies, will be badly hurt by trade retaliation. President Trump’s decision to tear up the Trans Pacific Partnership, without trying to renegotiate it, may have appealed to those people in his base that are not knowledgeable about trade, but this decision to tear up the TPP and the failure to create more US free trade agreements puts many US agriculture companies at risk.

As stated before in past blog posts, no one in the Trump Administration or the Congress assessed the real costs to US industry of not doing the Trans Pacific Partnership. Every day those costs are becoming clearer and clearer.

On February 15, 2018, Capital Press in an article entitled “Wheat industry seeks to re-enter TPP” describes in detail what the withdrawal from the TPP means for the US wheat industry and what that means for US jobs:

“If the United States doesn’t re-enter the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Northwest wheat exports to Japan could drop by half within a few years, says the leader of the Washington Grain Commission.

The Pacific Northwest currently exports roughly 800,000 metric tons of Western white wheat, a popular blend of soft white wheat and subclass club wheat, to Japan each year, commission CEO Glen Squires said.

Hard red winter and hard red spring wheat exports would also be impacted, affecting Montana and North Dakota, and other states exporting off the West Coast, Squires said.

Japan wants the U.S. in TPP, and is not interested in bilateral agreements, Squires said.

Wheat industry representatives met in Washington D.C. last week. Many legislators are aware of the concerns about the Trans-Pacific Partnership proceeding without the United States, Squires said. It will essentially amount to a tariff on U.S. wheat, putting the country at a price disadvantage in key markets compared to competing wheat-producing countries that are remain in the trade pact.

Changes under TPP will occur over nine years, but Squires said the impact on shipments could be much faster.

“This is a massively big deal,” he said.

Reduced demand would result in lower wheat prices, Squires said.

A national coalition of agricultural commodities is forming to address the situation, Squires said. The industry will appeal to the Trump administration to rejoin the trade deal.

“President Trump is the guy who can negotiate, and get us back involved,” Squires said. “It’s clearly a big impact: It’s the equivalent of handing our competitors a $500 million check per year.” . . .

Squires warned of “ripple effects” throughout the industry, which could happen as soon as U.S. wheat becomes uncompetitive in overseas markets. . . .

Without exports to Japan, the grain commission estimates volume would drop by 62.5 million bushels. That equals 19,000 fewer rail cars and nearly 70 bulk vessels each year. Impact would be felt by port facilities, barges, elevator longshoremen, ship handlers, and other industry members, Squires said.

Every $1 billion in farm exports supports more than 8,000 jobs in 2016. Wheat export losses of $500 million per year would lead to reductions in the work force across the supply chain, Squires said. . . .”

Emphasis added.

Keep in mind that rural America and farmers are a key constituency of the Trump Presidency. Trump won the Presidency not only because of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, but also the states of Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, and many other states where farmers and agriculture are very important for the economy of those States.

Yet the Wall Street Journal reported on February 8, 2018 that in contrast to the rest of the economy, Farm Incomes are falling:

“Farm Belt Braces for Falling Incomes, Trade Disputes

Farm incomes are forecast to decline 7% to $60 billion in 2018.

U.S. farmers are gearing up for another tough year.

Farm incomes are expected to hit their lowest point since 2006 and borrowing costs are rising, federal data shows, as a deepening slump in the agricultural economy enters its ﬁfth year.

A string of bumper corn and soybean harvests has added to a glut of grain world-wide, eroding prices for U.S. farmers. Foreign rivals like Russia and Brazil are also chipping away at U.S. dominance in the global grain trade, helping to fuel a multiyear downturn that is pushing some farmers out of business.

“The state of the rural economy is fragile,” Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue told lawmakers during a hearing of the House Agriculture Committee on Tuesday. “There’s a lot of stress and a lot of duress on the farms today.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture on Wednesday forecast that farm incomes would fall 7% to $60 billion in 2018 on lower crop and livestock revenue, less than half of the record $124 billion farmers earned in 2013. Farmers are already borrowing more to keep farms running. . . .

As spring planting looms, farmers are looking to South America for clues on demand for their own crop. The USDA boosted its forecast for Brazil’s soybean harvest on Thursday, and cut its projection for U.S. exports of the oilseed this season thanks to stiﬀer competition from South America.”

As stated many times in past blog posts, President Trump’s decision to rip up the Trans Pacific Partnership and talk about more tariffs on various trade areas has led to many foreign countries, including China, to not look at the US as a reliable partner in the trade area. It has also resulted in many foreign countries, including Mexico, China, Japan and the EC, to switch sourcing products from the US and turn to alternative sources of supply. Since almost 50% of all agriculture products are exported, one third of Iowa corn is exported to Mexico, agriculture and the farm states are starting to feel real pain because of the Trump trade policy.

TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP (“TPP”) RISES AGAIN???

As mentioned in my last blog post, Trump’s trade team is starting to realize that countries do not want to negotiate bilateral trade deals with the US. Even though NAFTA may ultimately be renegotiated, the real problem is that with Trump’s policy of weaponizing trade agreements, no other country will enter into a trade agreement with the US. As Robert Zoellick, the former United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) under President George W. Bush, stated on January 7th in the Wall Street Journal in an article entitled “Trump Courts Economic Mayhem”:

“No country wants to do a bilateral deal with Mr. Trump now because he demands managed trade, not fair competition. He wants excuses to raise barriers, not rules to boost trade.”

As stated above, that is a huge problem for US farmers because almost 50% of farm products produced in the US are exported.

Because of this failure, if Trump keeps going down this road, the US may conclude no free trade agreements. This would have a devastating impact on US exporters, including US agricultural companies. The entire World is moving to free trade agreements and because of Most Favored Nation principle, the US with lower tariffs than many other countries would benefit the most. Because of this reality, in my last blog post I suggested that Trump might want to renegotiate the TPP, but only under strict conditions.

Lo and behold, in January and February there were noises from the President and the Administration about coming back to the TPP.

On January 23rd, in an article entitled, “TPP Members Reach Agreement on Major Trade Pact”, the Wall Street Journal reported:

“TOKYO—Negotiators from 11 Paciﬁc Rim nations agreed Tuesday on a Trans-Paciﬁc Partnership trade deal, the Japanese minister in charge of TPP said, a year after President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the talks.

Negotiators gathered again in Tokyo Tuesday and cleared away the remaining sticking points, said Toshimitsu Motegi, the Japanese minister handling the talks. He said the 11 nations aim to sign the agreement on March 8 in Chile. . . .

The TPP deal came just a half-day after the Trump administration slapped steep tariﬀs on imported solar panels and washing machines, a move to implement Mr. Trump’s harder line on trade that he has touted since his election campaign.

Japan has depicted itself as a free-trade champion that can assume the kind of leadership role previously taken by U.S. administrations.

“Now in some parts of the world, there is a move toward protectionism, and I think the TPP-11 is a major engine to overcome such a phenomenon,” Mr. Motegi said.

He said the deal was “epoch-making for Japan as well as for the future of the Asia-Paciﬁc region.” He also reiterated a hope frequently expressed by Japanese oﬃcials that once the 11- nation TPP is up and running, the U.S. might consider rejoining the deal.

The TPP agreement could also provide a framework for a future Nafta deal should the current one be scrapped by the Trump administration, according to people familiar with the trade talks. Senior Mexican oﬃcials see the TPP agreement as an indication that the free-trade train is rolling forward with regional pacts, with or without the U.S. aboard, as Nafta is being renegotiated.”

On January 26, 2018, during a meeting at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump discussed trade and eventually turned to the TPP stating:

“The United States is prepared to negotiate mutually beneficial, bilateral trade agreements with all countries. This will include the countries in TPP, which are very important. We have agreements with several of them already. We would consider negotiating with the rest, either individually, or perhaps as a group, if it is in the interests of all.”

In response to a question in an interview with CNBC’s Joe Kerne, Trump further stated:

“I would do TPP if we were able to make a substantially better deal. The deal was terrible, the way it was structured was terrible. If we did a substantially better deal, I would be open to TPP.”

During his Davos address, however, Trump did not mention the TPP and instead put forth a very tough statement on trade:

“The United States will no longer turn a blind eye to unfair economic practices, including massive intellectual property theft, industrial subsidies, and pervasive state-led economic planning. These and other predatory behaviors are distorting the global markets and harming businesses and workers, not just in the U.S., but around the globe.”

In line with the tough stance against international trade, during Davos Economic Forum, on January 24th, in an article entitled, “U.S. Commerce Secretary Slams Beijing for Protectionist Actions Under Free-Trade Rhetoric” the Wall Street Journal reported:

“The Chinese have for quite a little while been superb at free-trade rhetoric and even more superb at highly protectionist activities,” U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told a trade panel Wednesday in Davos, Switzerland. Mr. Ross went on to blame both Beijing and the European Union for unfairly beneﬁting from higher tariﬀs and challenged the other two big economies to lower their import duties to U.S. levels.

“We really are the least protectionist, and unfortunately we have the trade deﬁcits to show for it,” Mr. Ross said.

The Trump administration is seeking to push its own trade message at the annual Davos economic gathering, which is closely linked to globalization and multilateralism. Mr. Ross backed the administration’s bilateral approach to negotiating trade agreements and defended President Donald Trump’s exit from the unratiﬁed 12-nation Trans-Paciﬁc Partnership agreement a year earlier, saying there was “no political appetite” for the pact in either party.”

But then the TPP story continued to grow. During his visit to Tokyo last year in 2017, Vice President Mike Pence stated as far as the Trump administration is concerned, the TPP is a “thing of the past.” But during his most recent trip to Tokyo in February 2018, his tune seemed to change. On February 7th, Kyodo News reported that in discussions with Japanese Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso, Vice President Pence “referred to the possibility of the United States returning to the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade deal.” Apparently, Pence’s statement was in response to a question from the Deputy Prime Minster about Trump’s statement at Davos. Apparently, Pence and Aso then exchanged views on the strategic importance of the TPP.

On January 31st, the famous economist Robert Samuelson in an article in Investors Business Daily entitled “Trump Dumped TPP A Year Ago – -What Did it Accomplish” stated:

“As President Trump appraises the state of the union, it’s worth remembering what still ranks as one of the worst decisions of his presidency: the withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. It happened just about a year ago.

You’ll recall that the TPP was an agreement between the U.S. and 11 other countries — Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, Chile and Peru — representing about 40% of the world economy.

Rejecting the TPP was, for Trump, a highly symbolic act buttressing his assertions that the United States has made bad trade deals that have diverted jobs, incomes and influence to foreign countries. He pledged to do better.

The reality is just the opposite, as a short analysis by economist Jeffrey Schott of the Peterson Institute makes clear. It turns out that the other 11 countries weren’t willing to sacrifice the TPP’s benefits. They decided to adopt the agreement anyway — without the United States — calling it the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or (a mouthful) CPTPP. It’s scheduled to be signed on March 8 in Chile.

The new agreement makes the United States “the biggest loser” from the whole TPP episode, writes Schott. For starters, there will be lower exports and incomes. Economic simulations done by researchers at the Peterson Institute estimated that the TPP would ultimately raise U.S. gross domestic product by $131 billion, or 0.5% of GDP. Those gains are now gone.

Schott notes that a number of TPP provisions advocated by the United States but opposed “by most other countries” have been dropped in the new agreement. These include “obligations regarding patents on certain pharmaceutical products, procedures involving investor-state disputes, prohibitions on the illegal taking and trade in wildlife” and restrictions on government-owned firms.

The biggest winner in the TPP episode is, almost certainly, China. Although China wasn’t a member of the TPP, Trump’s decision to withdraw leaves other Pacific-rim countries less dependent on the United States for their trade and more dependent on China — and, therefore, more subject to Chinese economic and political influence.

Rarely has the United States embraced a policy that, in contrast to the supporting rhetoric, is so contrary to its own interests. Even Trump may recognize this. In his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, he hinted obliquely that he might resume negotiations with the other TPP nations “if it is in the interests of all.”

The open question now is whether the president will repeat his mistake by repudiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the trade pact among the United States, Mexico and Canada that Trump has sharply criticized. The damage would be even greater.”

During the time when the TPP was being discussed in Congress, its passage was in trouble because many Senators and Congressmen believed the US did not get enough and many Senators and Congressmen wanted a a better deal. But now there is no deal and the costs of not doing the TPP are becoming clearer.

On February 16th, 25 Republican Senators, many from agriculture states, such as Hatch, Grassley, Ernst, Enzi, Gardner, McCain and Daines, sent the attached letter to President Trump, 021618 Letter to POTUS on TPP1, strongly urging him to rejoin the Trans Pacific Partnership stating:

“Mr. President:

We write in support of your recent comments expressing interest in re-engaging with the Trans­ Pacific Partnership (TPP) to bring about a stronger agreement for the United States. Reducing barriers to trade and investment, protecting American intellectual property rights, and leveling the playing field for U.S. businesses, manufacturers, farmers, fishermen, and ranchers is of utmost importance, and we ask that you prioritize engagement with the TPP so that the American people can prosper from the tremendous opportunities that these trading partners bring.

As you know, increased economic engagement with the eleven nations currently in the TPP has the potential to substantially improve the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, support millions of U.S. jobs, increase U.S. exports, increase wages, fully unleash America’s energy potential, and benefit consumers. Increasing access to a region and market that has a population of nearly 500 million can create widespread benefits to the U.S. economy. An improved TPP would therefore bolster and sustain the economic growth America has experienced over the past year facilitated by the regulatory reductions and reforms enacted by your Administration and the substantial tax cuts that you signed into law.

Further, TPP can serve as a way to strengthen ties with our allies in the region, counter the influence of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and increase pressure on the PRC to adopt substantive and positive economic reforms. Re-engaging on TPP would also provide another platform to modernize trade with Canada and Mexico. . . .

In summary, we encourage you to work aggressively to secure reforms that would allow the United States to join the agreement. We share your commitment for free trade agreements that benefit the American people, and we stand ready to work closely with you toward achieving a TPP agreement that meets this objective.”

As predicted many times in prior blog posts, the costs of not joining the TPP are becoming clearer and clearer and the real economic pain of not joining the TPP is also becoming starkly clear.

RETALIATION BEGINS– FIRST SORGHUM GRAIN NEXT SOYBEANS??

As stated above, when the US imposes trade restrictions, US trading partners will respond with their own trade restrictions retaliating against US exports. But Trump and the average American may simply believe that neither the EC nor China will retaliate against US exports, causing economic pain to the US. Think again as the retaliation has already started and it will hurt.

MOFCOM SELF-INITIATED ANTIDUMPING (“AD”) AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY (“CVD”) CASES AGAINST SORGHUM GRAIN FROM THE US

On December 1, 2017, in the first time in over a decade, the Commerce Department self-initiated an antidumping and countervailing duty case against imports of aluminum sheet from China.

On February 4, 2018, the Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) in China retaliated by self-initiating its own antidumping and countervailing duty case against imports of US sorghum grain. Total China imports of US Sorghum Grain in 2016 were 5,869,000 tons worth more than $1.26 billion USD.

Notices of appearance are due at MOFCOM by February 24th.

Although the Trump Administration and many Americans may believe that the US government does not provide subsidies to its producers, as mentioned in the MOFCOM announcement, it will be investigating large US agricultural subsidies for sorghum grain, such as Crop Insurance Program, Price Loss Protection Program, Agricultural Risk Protection Program, Marketing Loan Program, Export Credit Guarantee Program, Market Access Program and Foreign Market Development Partner Program.

This case is important because it signals the possible start of a trade war with China. The US self-initiates antidumping and countervailing duty cases against China; China self-initiates antidumping and countervailing duty cases against the US.

SOYBEANS?

On February 7th, Bloomberg reported that the Chinese government is looking at possibly self-initiating trade cases against Chinese imports of US soybeans. In the article entitled, “China Studying Impact of Trade Measures Against U.S. Soy, Sources Say” Bloomberg stated:

“China is studying the potential impact of trade measures imposed on soybeans imported from the U.S., valued last year at $13.9 billion, according to people familiar with the matter.

Speculation is mounting over China’s response to U.S. tariffs on imported solar panels and washing machines announced last month. The Ministry of Commerce has been looking into the consequences of measures against U.S. soybeans since January . . . . That includes anti-dumping and anti-subsidy probes. . . .

China’s soybean imports have climbed to a record as expansion in large-scale livestock farming and a shortage of protein-rich feed grains boost soy-meal consumption. While the U.S. counts China as its biggest soybean market, the Asian country last year bought more of the oilseed from Brazil.”

If Section 232 Tariffs are imposed against US imports of EC Steel, the EC is planning to retaliate immediately against US exports of Harley Davidson Motorcycles from Wisconsin (Paul Ryan Republican Speaker of the House) and Jack Daniels Bourbon from Kentucky (Mitch McConnell, Republican Senate Majority).

SECTION 232 STEEL AND ALUMINUM CASES—THE REAL TRADE WAR BEGINS

President Trump must make a decision in the Section 232 National Security Cases against imports of steel and aluminum by April 11, 2018 in the Steel Case and April 19, 2018 in the Aluminum case. This article will concentrate on the Steel 232 case and mention Aluminum at the end because the Steel case is bigger, but both cases will have devastating consequences on downstream US producers and through retaliation on US exports. Truthfully, if President Trump does what Commerce Secretary Ross is recommending and imposes very high tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum, he will ignite a trade war with many other countries, which will become red hot. This will be a shooting trade war with retaliation aimed at US exports and this protectionism will become destructionism—killing US jobs.

Trump’s decisions in these two Section 232 cases will give us a much better idea of whether President Trump wants a trade war or not. Both the EC, China and other countries are drawing up retaliation lists aimed at US exports of various products.

Under the terms of the executive order, the interagency group was to present a report to the White House within 270 days that identifies goods that are essential for national security and analyzes the ability of the defense industrial base to produce those goods.

Since the Secretary reported affirmatively, the President has 90 days to determine whether it concurs with the Secretary’s determination and “determine the nature and duration of the action that, in the judgment of the President, must be taken to adjust the imports of the article and its derivatives so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security” – – April 11, 2018 in the Steel Case and April 19, 2018 in the Aluminum case.

Although Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross pledged to get the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum reports to President Trump’s desk by the end of June 2017, that did not happen as the Administration began to realize the impact a broad tariff on steel or aluminum raw material inputs would have on downstream users, which are dependent on high quality, competitively priced raw materials to produce competitive downstream products made from steel and aluminum.

“I am glad that we were able to provide this analysis and these recommendations to the President. I look forward to his decision on any potential course of action.”

In response to questions of whether the US would be vulnerable to challenges in the WTO, Ross said he would not be surprised if some countries filed World Trade Organization challenges, but he was confident that the United States was on firm legal ground. Ross went on to state:

“National security is a very broadly encompassing topic … it is not just the narrow definition of defense needs, it also covers infrastructure needs and other needs. So we believe and our counsel believes that this is a perfectly valid interpretation of national security the way that it’s used in Section 232, which is much broader than you might think in terms of usual parlance.”

STEEL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Commerce Department statement accompanying the Steel Report summarizes the findings and sets out the remedies recommended by the Department:

“The Department of Commerce found that the quantities and circumstances of steel and aluminum imports “threaten to impair the national security,” as defined by Section 232.

The reports are currently under consideration by the President, and no final decisions have been made with regard to their contents. The President may take a range of actions, or no action, based on the analysis and recommendations provided in the reports. Action could include making modifications to the courses of action proposed, such as adjusting percentages.

STEEL SUMMARY

The Commerce Department statement accompanying the Steel Report summarized the Key Findings of the Steel Report as follows:

The United States is the world’s largest importer of steel. Our imports are nearly four times our exports.

Six basic oxygen furnaces and four electric furnaces have closed since 2000 and employment has dropped by 35% since 1998.

World steelmaking capacity is 2.4 billion metric tons, up 127% from 2000, while steel demand grew at a slower rate.

The recent global excess capacity is 700 million tons, almost 7 times the annual total of U.S. steel consumption. China is by far the largest producer and exporter of steel, and the largest source of excess steel capacity. Their excess capacity alone exceeds the total U.S. steel-making capacity.

On an average month, China produces nearly as much steel as the U.S. does in a year. For certain types of steel, such as for electrical transformers, only one U.S. producer remains.

As of February 15, 2018, the U.S. had 169 antidumping and countervailing duty orders in place on steel, of which 29 are against China, and there are 25 ongoing investigations.

Recommendations of the Steel Report:

Secretary Ross has recommended to the President that he consider the following alternative remedies to address the problem of steel imports:

A global tariff of at least 24% on all steel imports from all countries, or

A tariff of at least 53% on all steel imports from 12 countries (Brazil, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, India, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam) with a quota by product on steel imports from all other countries equal to 100% of their 2017 exports to the United States, or

A quota on all steel products from all countries equal to 63% of each country’s 2017 exports to the United States.

Each of these remedies is intended to increase domestic steel production from its present 73% of capacity to approximately an 80% operating rate, the minimum rate needed for the long-term viability of the industry. Each remedy applies measures to all countries and all steel products to prevent circumvention.

The tariffs and quotas would be in addition to any duties already in place. The report recommends that a process be put in place to allow the Secretary to grant requests from U.S. companies to exclude specific products if the U.S. lacks sufficient domestic capacity or for national security considerations.

Any exclusions granted could result in changed tariffs or quotas for the remaining products to maintain the overall effect.”

ACTUAL SECTION 232 STEEL REPORT

In the actual Section 232 Steel report itself, the Department stated:

“CONCLUSION

The Secretary has determined that the displacement of domestic steel by excessive imports and the consequent adverse impact of those quantities of steel imports on the economic welfare of the domestic steel industry, along with the circumstance of global excess capacity in steel, are “weakening our internal economy” and therefore “threaten to impair” the national security as defined in Section 232.

The continued rising levels of imports of foreign steel threaten to impair the national security by placing the U.S. steel industry at substantial risk of displacing the basic oxygen furnace and other steelmaking capacity, and the related supply chain needed to produce steel for critical infrastructure and national defense.

In considering “the impact of foreign competition on the economic welfare of individual domestic [steel] industries” and other factors Congress expressly outlined in Section 232, the Secretary has determined that the continued decline and concentration in steel production capacity is “weakening of our internal economy and may impair national security.” See 19 U.S.C. § 1862(d).

Global excess steel capacity is a circumstance that contributes to the “weakening of our internal economy” that “threaten[s] to impair” the national security as defined in Section 232. Free markets globally are adversely affected by substantial chronic global excess steel production led by China. While U.S. steel production capacity has remained flat since 2001, other steel producing nations have increased their production capacity, with China alone able to produce as much steel as the rest of the world combined. This overhang of excess capacity means that U.S. steel producers, for the foreseeable future, will face increasing competition from imported steel as other countries export more steel to the United States to bolster their own economic objectives.

Since defense and critical infrastructure requirements alone are not sufficient to support a robust steel industry, U.S. steel producers must be financially viable and competitive in the commercial market to be available to produce the needed steel output in a timely and cost efficient manner. In fact, it is the ability to quickly shift production capacity used for commercial products to defense and critical infrastructure production that provides the United States a surge capability that is vital to national security, especially in an unexpected or extended conflict or national emergency. It is that capability which is now at serious risk; as imports continue to take business away from domestic producers, these producers are in danger of falling below minimum viable scale and are at risk of having to exit the market and substantially close down production capacity, often permanently.

Steel producers in the United States are facing widespread harm from mounting imports. Growing global steel capacity, flat or declining world demand, the openness of the U.S. steel market, and the price differential between U.S. market prices and global market prices (often caused by foreign government steel intervention) ensures that the U.S. will remain an attractive market for foreign steel absent quotas or tariffs. Excessive imports of steel, now consistently above 30 percent of domestic demand, have displaced domestic steel production, the related skilled workforce, and threaten the ability of this critical industry to maintain economic viability.

A U.S. steel industry that is not financially viable to invest in the latest technologies, facilities, and long-term research and development, nor retain skilled workers while attracting a next-generation workforce, will be unable to meet the current and projected needs of the U.S. military and critical infrastructure sectors. Moreover, the market environment for U.S. steel producers has deteriorated dramatically since the 2001 Report, when the Department concluded that imports of iron ore and semi-finished steel do not “fundamentally threaten” the ability of U.S. industry to meet national security needs.

The Department’s investigation indicates that the domestic steel industry has declined to a point where further closures and consolidation of basic oxygen furnace facilities represents a “weakening of our internal economy” as defined in Section 232. The more than 50 percent reduction in the number of basic oxygen furnace facilities – either through closures or idling of facilities due to import competition – increases the chance of further closures that place the United States at serious risk of being unable to increase production to the levels needed in past national emergencies. The displacement of domestic product by excessive imports is having the serious effect of causing the domestic industry to operate at unsustainable levels, reducing employment, diminishing research and development, inhibiting capital expenditures, and causing a loss of vital skills and know-how. The present capacity operating rates for those remaining plants continue to be below those needed for financial sustainability. These conditions have been further exacerbated by the 22 percent surge in imports thus far in 2017 compared with 2016. Imports are now consistently above 30 percent of U.S. domestic demand.

It is evident that the U.S. steel industry is being substantially impacted by the current levels of imported steel. The displacement of domestic steel by imports has the serious effect of placing the United States at risk of being unable meet national security requirements. The Secretary has determined that the “displacement of domestic [steel] products by excessive imports” of steel is having the “serious effect” of causing the “weakening of our internal economy.” See 19 U.S.C. § 1862(d). Therefore, the Secretary recommends that the President take corrective action pursuant to the authority granted by Section 232. See 19 U.S.C. § 1862(c).

RECOMMENDATION

Prior significant actions to address steel imports (quotas and/or tariffs) were taken under various statutory authorities . . . all at lower levels of import penetration than the present level, which is above 30 percent.

Due to the threat of steel imports to the national security, as defined in Section 232, the Secretary recommends that the President take immediate action by adjusting the level of imports through quotas or tariffs on steel imported into the United States, as well as direct additional actions to keep the U.S. steel industry financially viable and able to meet U.S. national security needs. The quota or tariff imposed should be sufficient, after accounting for any exclusions, to enable the U.S. steel producers to be able to operate at about an 80 percent or better of the industry’s capacity utilization rate based on available capacity in 2017. . . .

By reducing import penetration rates to approximately 21 percent, U.S. industry would be able to operate at 80 percent of their capacity utilization. Achieving this level of capacity utilization based on the projected 2017 import levels will require reducing imports from 36 million metric tons to about 23 million metric tons. If a reduction in imports can be combined with an increase in domestic steel demand, as can be reasonably expected rising economic growth rates combined with the increased military spending and infrastructure proposals that the Trump Administration has planned, then U.S. steel mills can be expected to reach a capacity utilization level of 80 percent or greater. This increase in U.S. capacity utilization will enable U.S. steel mills to increase operations significantly in the short-term and improve the financial viability of the industry over the long-term.

Impose a Quota or Tariff on all steel products covered in this investigation imported into the United States to remove the threatened impairment to national security. The Secretary recommends adjusting the level of imports through a quota or tariff on steel imported into the United States.

Alternative 1 – Global Quota or Tariff

1A. Global Quota

Impose quotas on all imported steel products at a specified percent of the 2017 import level, applied on a country and steel product basis.

According to the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) Model, produced by Purdue University, a 63 percent quota would be expected to reduce steel imports by 37 percent (13.3 million metric tons) from 2017 levels. Based on imports from January to October, import levels for 2017 are projected to reach 36.0 million metric tons. The quotas, adjusted as necessary, would result in imports equaling about 22.7 million metric tons, which will enable an 80 percent capacity utilization rate at 2017 demand levels (including exports). Application of an annual quota will reduce the impact of the surge in steel imports that has occurred since the beginning of 2017.

1B. Global Tariff

Apply a tariff rate on all imported steel products, in addition to any antidumping or countervailing duty collections applicable to any imported steel product.

Similar to what is anticipated under a quota, according to the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) Model, produced by Purdue University, a 24 percent tariff on all steel imports would be expected to reduce imports by 37 percent (i.e., a reduction of 13.3 million metric tons from 2017 levels of 36.0 million metric tons). This tariff rate would thus result in imports equaling about 22.7 million metric tons, which will enable an 80 percent capacity utilization rate at 2017 demand levels (including exports).

Alternative 2 –Tariffs on a Subset of Countries

Apply a tariff rate on all imported steel products from Brazil, South Korea, Russia, Turkey, India, Vietnam, China, Thailand, South Africa, Egypt, Malaysia and Costa Rica, in addition to any antidumping or countervailing duty collections applicable to any steel products from those countries. All other countries would be limited to 100 percent of their 2017 import level.

According to the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) Model, produced by Purdue University, a 53 percent tariff on all steel imports from this subset of countries would be expected to reduce imports by 13.3 million metric tons from 2017 import levels from the targeted countries. This action would enable an increase in domestic production to achieve an 80 percent capacity utilization rate at 2017 demand levels (including exports). The countries identified are projected to account for less than 4 percent of U.S. steel exports in 2017.

Exemptions

In selecting an alternative, the President could determine that specific countries should be exempted from the proposed 63 percent quota or 24 percent tariff by granting those specific countries 100 percent of their prior imports in 2017, based on an overriding economic or security interest of the United States. The Secretary recommends that any such determination should be made at the outset and a corresponding adjustment be made to the final quota or tariff imposed on the remaining countries. This would ensure that overall imports of steel to the United States remain at or below the level needed to enable the domestic steel industry to operate as a whole at an 80 percent or greater capacity utilization rate. The limitation to 100 percent of each exempted country’s 2017 imports is necessary to prevent exempted countries from producing additional steel for export to the United States or encouraging other countries to seek to trans-ship steel to the United States through the exempted countries.

It is possible to provide exemptions from either the quota or tariff and still meet the necessary objective of increasing U.S. steel capacity utilization to a financially viable target of 80 percent. However, to do so would require a reduction in the quota or increase in the tariff applied to the remaining countries to offset the effect of the exempted import tonnage.

Exclusions

The Secretary recommends an appeal process by which affected U.S. parties could seek an exclusion from the tariff or quota imposed. The Secretary would grant exclusions based on a demonstrated: (1) lack of sufficient U.S. production capacity of comparable products; or (2) specific national security based considerations. This appeal process would include a public comment period on each exclusion request, and in general, would be completed within 90 days of a completed application being filed with the Secretary.

An exclusion may be granted for a period to be determined by the Secretary and may be terminated if the conditions that gave rise to the exclusion change. The U.S. Department of Commerce will lead the appeal process in coordination with the Department of Defense and other agencies as appropriate. Should exclusions be granted the Secretary would consider at the time whether the quota or tariff for the remaining products needs to be adjusted to increase U.S. steel capacity utilization to a financially viable target of 80 percent.”

Two of the EC retaliation targets would be Harley Davidson motorcycles and Jack Daniels Bourbon.

WILL PRESIDENT TRUMP IMPOSE IMPORT RESTRICTIONS IN THE SECTION 232 STEEL CASE BY APRIL 11?

My firm belief is that Trump will impose import restraints and the only question is how tough they will be. Although other commentators have suggested that President Trump might punt and bring a WTO case or more antidumping and countervailing duty cases, my belief is that President Trump wants to levy tariffs because that is what he promised his base. “Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead”. Trump also believes that all steel imported into the US is dumped and subsidized as the Commerce Department finds dumping and subsidization in almost 100% of the cases.

On February 13th, Breitbart in an article entitled “Chinese Steel Dumping Takes Center Stage as President Trump Mulls Tariffs, Quotas” quoted President Trump in a meeting at the White House with both parties in the House and the Senate:

“Last year, I directed the Secretary of Commerce to investigate whether steel and aluminum imports are threatening to impair U.S. national security,” Trump said. “You see what’s happened with our steel and aluminum industries. They are being decimated by dumping from many countries—in particular one, but many countries.”

That “particular one” Trump was referring to is China. Trump said:

“They are dumping and destroying our industry and destroying the families of workers and we can’t let that happen. Secretary Ross submitted the result of the investigation to me last month. My administration is now reviewing the reports and considering all options. Part of the options would be tariffs coming in as they dump steel, they pay tariffs—substantial tariffs—and the United States would actually make a lot of money, and probably our steel industry and our aluminum industry would come back into our country. Right now, it’s decimated. It will make a decision and I will make a decision that reflects the best interests of the United States including the need to address over-production in China and other countries. You have countries that are so over-producing and what they’re doing is they’re dumping it on us and you look at what empty steel factories and plants and it’s a very sad thing to look at. I’ve been looking at it for two years as I went around campaigning.”

But on February 13th, International Trade 360 in an article entitled, “Lawmakers Caution Trump On Steel Trade Restrictions,” reported:

“A bipartisan group of 19 lawmakers from both chambers of Congress met with Trump at the White House, in a session that was slated to take place behind closed doors before it was abruptly opened up to media members. During the meeting, Trump made clear he is still actively considering import curbs on steel and aluminum in a pair of closely watched cases.

“I want to keep prices down, but I also want to make sure that we have a steel industry and an aluminum industry, and we do need that for national defense. If we ever have a conflict, we don’t want to be buying steel for a country we are fighting … What we are talking about is tariffs and/or quotas,” he said at the meeting. . . .

Though the statute is meant to exclusively address a security threat, the administration has repeatedly signaled that it may use the law as a cudgel against unfairly traded goods. Trump did this again during Tuesday’s meeting, saying that foreign steel and aluminum producers are “dumping and decimating our industries.”

While domestic steel and aluminum producers have repeatedly urged the administration to move forward with steep import restrictions, downstream manufacturers and other stakeholders have preached caution.

Leading that charge at Tuesday’s meeting was Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who said that the president must thread a delicate needle.

“We need to be careful here that we don’t start a reciprocal battle on tariffs,” Blunt said. “We make aluminum, and we make steel in Missouri, but we buy a lot of aluminum, and we buy a lot of steel as well.”

In one exchange, Sen. Pat Toomey (R‐Pa.) pressed Trump to move “very, very cautiously” and to only go after countries that engage in unfair trading practices. “That’s all countries,” Trump replied.

In another, Sen. Mike Lee (R‐Utah) warned that restrictions could cost jobs in other industries, but the president dismissed his concerns. “It will create a lot of jobs,” Trump said.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas, gave an even blunter assessment of the situation. He likened the Section 232 process to the use of “old- fashioned chemotherapy,” remarking that “it can often do as much damage as good.”

As other lawmakers warned that any tariff hikes or other restrictions could ultimately raise prices on consumers, Trump seemed mostly undeterred, opting instead to focus on the steel and aluminum production jobs such a move might salvage.

“You may have a higher price, but you have jobs,” he said.

“If we ever have a conflict, we don’t want to be buying steel from a country that we’re fighting because somehow that doesn’t work very well,” Trump said at the meeting. “We hopefully will not have any conflicts but … we cannot be without a steel industry. We cannot be without an aluminum industry. So what we’re talking about is tariffs and/or quotas.”

On February 19, 2018, in an editorial the Wall Street Journal warned President Trump on the Section 232 Cases:

“How to Punish American Workers

Steel and aluminum tariffs would cost more jobs than they save.

The economy is picking up steam, but President Trump could reduce the benefits of his tax cuts and regulatory rollback with protectionism. This risk became more serious after the Commerce Department on Friday recommended broad restrictions on aluminum and steel imports that would punish American businesses and consumers. . . .

But the evidence in Commerce’s reports belies this conclusion. And the wide-ranging economic damage from restricting imports would overwhelm the narrow benefits to U.S. steel and aluminum makers.

Start with national security, which Commerce construes broadly to include “economic welfare.” There’s little risk that the U.S. couldn’t procure sufficient steel and aluminum for defense even during a war. Defense consumes 3% of U.S.-made steel and about one-fifth of high-purity aluminum. U.S. steel mills last year operated at 72% of capacity while aluminum smelters ran at 39%. Both have ample slack to raise production for defense and commercial demands. . . .

Commerce nonetheless complains that China has driven down steel and aluminum prices by flooding the global market. Yet Commerce has already imposed 164 anti-dumping and countervailing duties on steel imports including more than two dozen on China. The department has also slapped tariffs on Chinese aluminum. Despite these tariffs, Commerce says rising imports “continue to weaken the U.S. steel industry’s financial health.”

Perhaps Mr. Ross missed the domestic manufacturers’ rosy earnings reports last month. Nucor ’s earnings soared by two-thirds in 2017 to $1.3 billion amid a 35% spike in the price of scrap metal. Steel Dynamics reported record sales, income and shipments last year. Even U.S. Steel posted a $387 million profit after a $440 million loss in 2016. Tariffs have padded profits amid growing U.S. demand.

As for aluminum, 18 smelters have shut down over the last decade amid rising electricity and declining aluminum prices. But production of secondary aluminum from scrap metal has been increasing, resulting in a 3% increase in employment across the industry between 2013 and 2016.

As a remedy for this non-problem, Commerce is proposing a global tariff of 24% on all steel imports; a 53% tariff on a dozen countries including China, Turkey and South Korea; or a global quota equaling 63% of existing imports. For aluminum, Commerce wants a global tariff of 7.7%; a 23.6% tariff on imports from China, Hong Kong, Russia, Venezuela, and Vietnam; or a global quota equal to 86.7% of imports.

Each option would raise prices for U.S. industries such as construction, transportation and mining. About 16 times more workers are employed today in U.S. steel-consuming industries than the 140,000 American steelworkers. Economists Joseph Francois and Laura Baughman found that more U.S. workers lost jobs (200,000) due to George W. Bush’s 2002 steel tariffs than were employed by the entire steel industry (187,500) at the time. Job losses hit Ohio (10,553 jobs lost), Michigan (9,829) and Pennsylvania (8,400).

About a quarter of a car’s cost is tied to steel, which is also a key component of domestically-produced wood chipper knives used in lumber, sawmills and landscaping. The oil-and-gas industry uses steel in drilling equipment, pipelines, production facilities, terminals and refineries. Aluminum inputs make up nearly half of the cost of a beer can.

Raising the cost of steel and aluminum inputs would impel many manufacturers to move production abroad to stay competitive globally. Does Mr. Trump want more cars made in Mexico? Mr. Ross has suggested letting businesses petition the government to exclude certain steel and aluminum products from the quotas or tariffs. But this review would be politicized and cause production delays.

Oh, and don’t forget that other countries could retaliate with trade barriers that hurt American exporters.

Commerce’s recommendations aren’t needed since the steel and aluminum industries are benefiting tremendously from Mr. Trump’s economic agenda. Tax reform is making it less expensive to retool mills, increased defense spending will also lift demand, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s withdrawal of the Obama Clean Power Plan contains electric prices. Why would Mr. Trump undercut his achievements with trade barriers that harm American workers and consumers?”

RETALIATION TARGETS ARE BEING PLANNED

EUROPEAN UNION

Axel Eggert, director general of the EUROFER steel lobby, warned the U.S. not to “pull the trigger on a new trade war,” adding: “The EU has an arsenal of trade remedies and safeguards available to defend its interests. These can be ready to launch in very short order in response to an economic threat, and EU industry will demand their immediate application.”

Gerd Götz, director general of the European Aluminum association, said that none of Ross’ proposed measures would address the root of the problem, which is Chinese overproduction, but instead do “great harm to Europe” ‐ to which the EU would then have to react by imposing trade restrictions, too. Gotz stated: “We call on the EU to be ready to protect our strategic sectors.”

US GROUPS RAISE RETALIATION CONCERNS

“Business Roundtable also stated that it is concerned that acting on the Commerce Department’s recommendations to use Section 232 to restrict steel and aluminum imports will result in foreign retaliation against U.S. exporters and harm the U.S. economy.

The American Automotive Policy Council, which represents Ford, General Motors and Chrysler‐Fiat, asked Trump to fashion a solution that won’t “diminish the global competitiveness of America’s automotive industry” by leading American carmakers to pay higher prices for steel and aluminum. This would place the U.S. automotive industry, which supports more than 7 million American jobs, at a competitive disadvantage.”

The American Institute for International Steel, which represents foreign steel producers, made the same point and urged Trump to reject Ross’ recommendations, rather than “risk the nation’s well‐being in order to benefit a few politically favored companies.”

AIIS Chairman John Foster stated:

“The national security foundation for the recommended tariffs and quotas is simply an unfortunate attempt to circumvent normally applicable WTO rules. If the United States chooses to abandon long‐standing principles of free trade that we have helped establish, and that have contributed so much to our national prosperity, Pandora’s box will be opened, and other countries will be sure to assert ‘national security’ reasons for protecting many other politically sensitive products from export competition.

The retaliatory measures that will follow will drive up manufacturing costs, inflate prices, shrink high‐value U.S. exports, and push the United States and the world toward recession.”

On February 21st, in Investors Business Daily in a op-ed piece entitled “Seriously, Steel Industry Protection Is The Wrong Way To Go“, Vernonique de Rugy and Christine A. McDaniel stated:

Their justification is that Chinese and other foreign steel producers benefit from unfair subsidies in their own countries. As a result of foreign competition, domestic steel’s market share is down to 70%. Numbers like this would make any other business owner’s head spin, but these executives think they deserve more. . . .

But for years this industry has avoided competition. As a result, they have not taken the tough steps needed to lean up and succeed on their own. With decades of special protections, billions in subsidies, and bloated executive compensation packages, it is no wonder U.S. producers are not competitive in this market with a low-wage country like China.

Thanks to his statements like last summer’s “Tariffs. I want tariffs,” these well- organized domestic steel executives see an opportunity with a president overly sympathetic to their pleas.

In an ideal world, no government would bankroll domestic companies. The urge to protect our own people against aggressive foreign subsidies is understandable, but not all protections actually help our country.

In particular, import taxes are known to be a net negative for the overall U.S. economy, and with intermediate inputs like steel the costs are more severe. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that 5.4 million workers are directly employed by steel-using sectors. The American Iron and Steel Institute reports that the steel industry directly employs 140,000 people in the United States. . . .

The steel industry’s historic unwillingness to compete and the government’s continued handouts are why they are in such poor shape today. It is why they are at the doorstep of the White House yet again asking the president, along with every American consumer, for help.

Aluminum imports have risen to 90% of total demand for primary aluminum, up from 66% in 2012. From 2013 to 2016 aluminum industry employment fell by 58%, 6 smelters shut down, and only two of the remaining 5 smelters are operating at capacity, even though demand has grown considerably.

At today’s reduced military spending, military consumption of aluminum is a small percentage of total consumption and therefore is insufficient by itself to preserve the viability of the smelters. For example, there is only one remaining U.S. producer of the high-quality aluminum alloy needed for military aerospace. Infrastructure, which is necessary for our economic security, is a major use of aluminum.

The Commerce Department has recently brought trade cases to try to address the dumping of aluminum. As of February 15, 2018, the U.S. had two antidumping and countervailing duty orders in place on aluminum, both against China, and there are four ongoing investigations against China.

Recommendations of the Aluminum Report:

Secretary Ross has recommended to President Trump three alternative remedies for dealing with the excessive imports of aluminum. These would cover both aluminum ingots and a wide variety of aluminum products.

A tariff of at least 7.7% on all aluminum exports from all countries, or

A tariff of 23.6% on all products from China, Hong Kong, Russia, Venezuela and Vietnam. All the other countries would be subject to quotas equal to 100% of their 2017 exports to the United States, or

A quota on all imports from all countries equal to a maximum of 86.7% of their 2017 exports to the United States.

Each of the three proposals is intended to raise production of aluminum from the present 48% average capacity to 80%, a level that would provide the industry with long-term viability. Each remedy applies measures to all countries and all steel products to prevent circumvention.

The tariffs and quotas would be in addition to any duties already in place. The report recommends that a process be put in place to allow the Secretary to grant requests from U.S. companies to exclude specific products if the U.S. lacks sufficient domestic capacity or for national security considerations.

Any exclusions granted could result in changed tariffs or quotas for the remaining products to maintain the overall effect.

SECTION 201 ESCAPE CLAUSE SOLAR CELLS/WASHING MACHINE DECISIONS

On January 22, 2018 the United States Trade Representative’s office (“USTR”) announced affirmative Section 201 decisions in the Solar Cells and Washing Machines cases and issued tariffs.

But one interesting point is that the Suniva, the US company that filed the Section 201 Solar Cells case, is majority owned by a Chinese Solar Manufacturer, Shunfeng International Clean Energy Ltd.

The remedies for the two Section 201 are specifically set forth below.

SOLAR CELLS

In the Solar Cells case, the remedy is:

Safeguard Tariffs on Imported Solar Cells and Modules

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Tariff increase

30%

25%

20%

15%

First 2.5 gigawatt of imported cells are excluded from the additional tariff

But in talking to one small solar cell importer, at the most during the year they import a total of 1 megawatt. This tells me that the new tariffs first will not be retroactive and second probably will kick in after several months each year, when total imports reach the 2.5 Gigawatt level. According to the Presidential Proclamation, however, the 30% tariff wasapplied to imports starting February 7, 2018.

The 201 tariffs are applicable to imports from almost all countries, including China, Malaysia, Germany, Canada and Mexico, except for the countries excluded in the Annex attached to the Presidential Proclamation. In future years, when total imports of solar cells and modules reach the 2.5 gigawatt level, the new tariff kicks in. So, for example, if total imports of solar cells and modules into the US reach the 2.5 gigawatt level on May 15, 2019, imports after that will be hit with a tariff.

WASHING MACHINES

The Washing Machines Remedy is set forth below. This is similar to the Solar Cells Remedy in the sense that the first 1.2 million washers will have a lower tariff and the higher tariff will not kick in until after total imports reach the 1.2 million unit level.

Also 50,000 units of covered parts are excluded from the tariff.

Tariff-Rate Quotas on Washers

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

First 1.2 million units of imported

finished washers

20%

18%

16%

All subsequent imports of finished

washers

50%

45%

40%

Tariff of covered parts

50%

45%

40%

Covered parts excluded from tariff

50,000 units

70,000 units

90,000 units

So the point of both remedies is import quickly into the US market. The first imports into the country in the Solar Cells case will have no tariff and in the Washing Machines case will have a lower tariff.

JANUARY 25 PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION AND EXCLUSION NOTICE IN FEDERAL REGISTER

In addition, a number of countries are excluded in Annex 1(b) from the tariff, including India, Ukraine, Indonesia, Turkey and many other countries, so long as their share of imports does not exceed 3%.

On February 14, 2018, the United States Trade Representative’s office (“USTR”) published the attached Federal Register notice, USTR EXCLUSION FED REG NOTICE, and allows companies to petition for exclusion by March 16. The Federal Register also sets forth a number of exclusions, which were already set forth in the Proclamation.

10 to 60 watt, inclusive, rectangular solar panels, where the panels have the following characteristics: (A) Length of 250 mm or more but not over 482 mm or width of 400 mm or more but not over 635 mm, and (B) surface area of 1000 cm2 or more but not over 3,061 cm2), provided that no such panel with those characteristics shall contain an internal battery or external computer peripheral ports at the time of entry;

1 watt solar panels incorporated into nightlights that use rechargeable batteries and have the following dimensions: 58 mm or more but not over 64 mm by 126 mm or more but not over 140 mm;

2 watt solar panels incorporated into daylight dimmers, that may use rechargeable batteries, such panels with the following dimensions: 75 mm or more but not over 82 mm by 139 mm or more but not over 143 mm;

Off-grid and portable CSPV panels, whether in a foldable case or in rigid form containing a glass cover, where the panels have the following characteristics: (a) A total power output of 100 watts or less per panel; (b) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm2 per panel; (c) does not include a built-in inverter; and where the panels have glass covers, such panels must be in individual retail packaging (in this context, retail packaging typically includes graphics, the product name, its description and/or features, and foam for transport);

3.19 watt or less solar panels, each with length of 75 mm or more but not over 266 mm and width of 46 mm or more but not over 127 mm, with surface area of 338 cm2 or less, with one black wire and one red wire (each of type 22 AWG or 24 AWG) not more than 206 mm in length when measured from panel edge, provided that no such panel shall contain an internal battery or external computer peripheral ports;

27.1 watt or less solar panels, each with surface area less than 3,000 cm2 and coated across the entire surface with a polyurethane doming resin, the foregoing joined to a battery charging and maintaining unit, such unit which is an acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (‘‘ABS’’) box that incorporates a light emitting diode (‘‘LED’’) by coated wires that include a connector to permit the incorporation of an extension cable.”

Emphasis added.

One exclusion that many companies are looking at is “off-grid and portable CSPV panels”, but there are a number of conditions quoted above that must be met to exclude the products in question.

Also the February 14th notice set up a number of criteria that must be met to get any additional exclusion from the Order.

Article 8.1 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, which includes Section 201 tariffs, requires countries proposing to impose a safeguard measure, like Trump’s restrictions on solar and washing machine imports, to compensate other WTO member countries for trade losses. That could be in the form of reduced duties on products of interest to those countries.

The EU, China, Taiwan and Korea have formally asked the U.S. to discuss compensation for trade losses due to President Donald Trump’s safeguard measures on solar cells.

If no agreement is reached on compensation within 30 days of their requests, the EU, China, Taiwan and South Korea can begin proceedings to impose retaliatory tariffs on the U.S. However, the parties would first need to prove to a WTO dispute settlement panel that the U.S. applied the restrictions in a way that violated the safeguards agreement.

In the past, the US has lost a number of Section 201 cases at the WTO for imposing tariffs in a manner that violated the safeguards agreement.

In addition, several Canadian solar manufacturers on Wednesday filed a case at the Court of International Trade in New York City challenging the Trump administration’s imposition of tariffs. The companies say the tariff violates NAFTA and they say the majority of the International Trade Commission found that Canadian solar manufacturers did not constitute a sufficient quantity of U.S. solar imports as to cause injury. They call on the court to enjoin the tariffs and then ask for an expedited resolution of the case.

SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR PRODUCTS ANTIDUMPING/COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES

POSSIBLE EXCLUSIONS??

The Commerce Department in the attached preliminary determination in late December, REVOCATION OF SOLAR CELLS ORDER, proposed to exclude certain small solar cells from the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty orders. Specifically, the proposed exclusion is:

“Excluded from the scope of these orders are panels with surface area from 3,450 mm2 to 33,782 mm2 with one black wire and one red wire (each of type 22 AWG or 24 AWG not more than 206 mm in length when measured from panel extrusion), and not exceeding 2.9 volts, 1.1 amps, and 3.19 watts. No panel shall contain an internal battery or external computer peripheral ports.”

On February 23, 2018, Commerce published its attached Federal Register notice initiating the 2016-2017 Solar Cells Review Investigation, CHINA SOLAR CELLS REVIEW INITIATION NOTICE. In that review, Quantity and Value Questionnaire responses are due at Commerce by March 6, 2018.

NEW SECTION 232 CASE AGAINST URANIUM IMPORTS

On January 16th, Ur-Energy USA Inc. and Energy Fuels Resources Inc. filed a section 232 petition at Commerce claiming that imports of uranium from state-owned and state-subsidized companies in Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan now fulfill 40 percent of U.S. demand, compared to the less than 5 percent satisfied by U.S. production. The Denver-based companies claim that imports from China will grow in the coming years. The companies also argue the volume of imports from Russia will only grow after a decades-old agreement that restricted imports from that country in exchange for suspending anti-dumping duties expires in 2020. The Petition states:

“The U.S. uranium industry needs immediate relief from imports that have grown dramatically and captured almost 80% of annual U.S. uranium demand. Our country cannot afford to depend on foreign sources — particularly Russia, and those in its sphere of influence, and China — for the element that provides the backbone of our nuclear deterrent, powers the ships and submarines of America’s nuclear Navy, and supplies 20% of the nation’s electricity.”

In the attached decision, ITC-Public-Opinion-Aircraft, on February 13, 2018, in a stunning reversal, the ITC reached a negative, no injury, determination in the Civil Aircraft from Canada/Bombardier antidumping and countervailing duty cases. In those cases, the Commerce Department had determined that the Canadian government had given subsidies of over 200% to Bombardier and because Bombardier refused to participate at the Commerce Department in the antidumping case, very high dumping margins.

But for the Commerce Department to issue antidumping and countervailing duty orders and for Boeing to win the Antidumping (“AD”) and Countervailing Duty (“CVD”) cases, it had to win the injury case at the ITC. The ITC found no competition between the Canadian imports and Boeing’s planes and reached a negative, no injury, determination. When Boeing lost the case at the ITC, it truly lost the case. The case was terminated and over with.

Prior to the ITC determination, I had predicted that there was a 95% chance that ITC would reach an affirmative, injury determination. What was the basis for my prediction and why did I get it wrong? The ITC reaches injury/affirmative determinations in about 2/3 of the cases or about 66%. But in big ticket cases, like Steel, Lumber and other cases, the ITC goes affirmative in a vast majority of them. Also in this case, Bombardier had refused to participate in the AD case at Commerce. That is not looked on kindly by the ITC Commissioners.

But the February 13th decision by the ITC was a true shocker and a real Boeing loss. One Commissioner, Williamson, is very pro domestic industry. In many cases where the ITC reaches a negative, no injury, determination, Commissioner Williamson will vote with the domestic industry. But the ITC decision was a 4-0 unanimous no injury determination. Why and what does this decision stand for?

First, pursuant to the Statute, the ITC is made up of 6 Commissioners, no more than 3 Commissioners from the same political party. Right now, however, there are only 4 Commissioners on the ITC and none were appointed by President Trump. 3 Commissioners were appointed by President Obama and Commissioner Williamson originally was appointed by President George W. Bush.

The ITC is a very independent agency, possibly the most independent agency in the US Government because under the Constitution Congress controls trade, not the President. So Congress wanted its own trade agency and it set up the ITC. The ITC’s budget goes directly to Congress and does not go through the Administration’s Office of Management and Budget, and the ITC in contrast to every other government agency has the right to represent itself in Court.

The point being is that the ITC is very insulated from trade politics and President Trump has no direct control over the agency. But more importantly, the ITC’s decision in the Boeing case was a legal determination. When you read the ITC’s determination, it becomes very clear that the ITC found that imports of 100 to 150 seat aircraft from Canada did not compete with Boeing’s aircraft because Boeing produces bigger airplanes. Because there were so very few sales in the case, the Commission could zero in on those few sales to Delta. Based on those sales, the ITC simply could not find enough economic competition between the Canadian imports and Boeing’s planes to justify an affirmative injury determination.

As the Commission stated in certain relevant pages of its determination:

“Nevertheless, the record also shows that the higher standard seating capacity of the [Boeing] 737-700 and 737 MAX 7 limits competition between those models and the [BOMBARDIER] CS100 for some purchasers. Boeing has emphasized that airlines have a strong economic incentive to minimize empty seats by using LCA that are no larger than necessary on particular flights because using an LCA with more seats than required would result in unfilled seats, higher costs per seat, and lower profits. Respondents agree. In a standard two-class configuration, the seat count differential between the CS100 and the 737 MAX 7 is 30 seats, which is greater than the 24 seat differential between the 737 MAX 7 and the 737-800 that Boeing characterizes as significant “for airlines that try to fill every seat on every flight they operate.” Given this, there can be limited competition between the CS100 and the 737-700 and MAX 7 for sales to a purchaser seeking 100- to 150-seat LCA with a seat count toward the low end of the subject range.

The record shows that differences in seat count precluded competition between subject imports and the domestic like product for the only firm order for C Series LCA by a U.S. purchaser. . . .

In sum, we find that there is a likelihood of substantially increased subject import volume and market share based on Bombardier’s single sale for importation of subject planes during the period of investigation. Given that Boeing’s 100- to 150-seat LCA did not meet the purchaser’s requirements for this sale, however, and Boeing did not offer any new aircraft for this sale, we do not find that Bombardier secured this sale at Boeing’s expense. There is also insufficient evidence for us to conclude that Bombardier is likely to secure additional sales for importation of subject 100- to 150-seat LCA in the imminent future, or that any purchases of subject imports in the imminent future would likely be at the domestic industry’s expense. . . .

Based on the preceding considerations, we conclude that subject imports are not likely to have a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry in the imminent future. It is likely that any subject imports that enter in the imminent future would be the result of Bombardier’s single U.S. sale during the period of investigation for which Boeing was not directly competitive. Bombardier has not made any additional sales in the United States. There is insufficient evidence for us to conclude that additional orders for 100- to 150-seat LCA are imminent, that Bombardier would secure these orders, or that any orders secured by Bombardier would come at Boeing’s expense. We are mindful of the statutory requirement that a threat determination may not be made on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition, and thus do not find threat of material injury by reason of subject imports.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, we determine that an industry in the United States is not threatened with material injury by reason of imports of 100- to 150-seat LCA from Canada that are sold in the United States at less than fair value and that are subsidized by the GOC.”

Emphasis added.

TWO IMPORTANT POINTS ABOUT THE ITC DETERMINATOIN AND BOEING’S LOSS

The importance of the Boeing negative determination is to make two very important points. First AD and CVD cases are not nearly as political as you would think. They are legal determinations, and the ITC can reach a negative no injury determination and turn the entire case off.

The second point is that many respondents in trade cases, especially in China, India and elsewhere, do not understand how important the ITC is in AD and CVD proceedings. Many respondents simply give up at the ITC. Bombardier, however, fought the Boeing case during the entire proceeding and mobilized companies and governments to speak out at the ITC about the case in favor of the respondents. This evened out the playing ground and made it easier for the ITC to reach a negative injury determination if it was inclined to do so. Bombardier also made sure that there was enough evidence on the ITC’s administrative record to make sure the ITC had the evidence to reach a negative determination.

Although fighting an ITC case takes time, resources and a lot of money to hire lawyers and consultants, Bombardier’s win at the ITC is a total victory. The case has ended and Boeing lost the case.

BOEING’S WTO FIGHT WITH AIRBUS COULD PROVIDE MORE TRADE RETALIATION

On February 11, 2018 the Seattle Times in an article entitled “Boeing’s biggest trade fight could spark a U.S. confrontation with Europe” went on to state about the next big trade fight by Boeing against Airbus and the EC:

“Boeing’s lawyers, still smarting from the shock of losing their U.S. trade- court case against Bombardier’s C Series jets, are now awaiting an imminent ruling in a bigger trade fight over government subsidies.

In a case against Airbus that’s slogged on for nearly 15 years and has seemed endless, Boeing now insists it’s within sight of a final victory.

And though the dispute long predates President Donald Trump, his administration’s hard-nosed “America First” posture on trade disputes – ready to impose tariffs rather than negotiating settlements – adds a new edge of rancor and risk.

The U.S. filed suit against Airbus at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2004, and since then the gears of that court have ground slowly without any perceivable impact.

Yet Boeing’s top lawyer, Michael Luttig, said in an interview that the law is about to catch up with Airbus and the European Union (EU).

“Boeing committed itself some 15 years ago … and it has never blinked since,” said Luttig. “Today, we are months away from the imposition of tariffs.”

Airbus is staring back, also refusing to blink

A senior Airbus executive and trade lawyer, who asked not to be named because of the continuing legal proceedings, compared Luttig’s threat of tariffs to “a nuclear strike” and pointed to the parallel EU case before the WTO that accuses Boeing of taking subsidies.

“The EU would be well-prepared to respond in kind and with much greater force,” said the Airbus legal executive. “The EU will survive that first nuclear strike and will retaliate with megatons to the U.S.’s kilotons.”

In a speech in London last month, Airbus CEO Tom Enders said that under Trump, the U.S. is “no longer fighting for opening markets but to close the U.S. market to foreign competitors.”

Citing the CSeries case, he accused Boeing of “ruthlessly surfing on this ‘America-First’ wave.”

The risk that a multinational trade war could erupt with some of the nation’s closest allies looks suddenly higher.

A WTO endgame

In September 2016, after multiple procedural steps and appeals, the last ruling in the United States’ WTO case against Airbus found that the European jet maker had fallen far short of remedying the harm to Boeing from illegal subsidies.

The EU immediately appealed. What’s ahead this year, by late spring, is the final decision on that appeal.

Boeing’s lawyers expect the court to largely uphold the 2016 decision

And Boeing says, that’s it. It’s the end of the appeals.

If Airbus loses, said Bob Novick, Boeing’s outside counsel on the WTO dispute since 2003 and former general counsel to the U.S. Trade Representative, the U.S. would then immediately request authorization to impose retaliatory sanctions. Boeing anticipates that the WTO will set the level of sanctions at $10 billion to $15 billion.

The U.S. government could then slap punitive tariffs up to that amount on whatever EU goods it selects for maximum political impact.

Boeing’s tough talk may be partly a negotiating ploy. Still, if the WTO hands this loaded weapon to the U.S. government, it’s unlikely the Trump administration’s trade hawks will be shy about using it.

Jeff Bialos, a partner in the international law firm Eversheds Sutherland and a former Commerce Department official handling major trade litigation, said that typically at such an endpoint in a trade dispute, the two governments would negotiate some agreed settlement.

“The issue is, will the Trump administration, with its views on trade . have the ability to negotiate solutions?” Bialos said. “The jury is out. We are going into uncharted waters.”

Bill Perry, a Seattle-based international trade lawyer with Harris Bricken and a former U.S. Commerce Department attorney, thinks Trump will take “a very hard line.”

He pointed to the administration’s imposition last month of tariffs on imported solar panels, to punish China for selling finished panels in the U.S. below their cost, and on washing machines, targeting Korean manufacturers.

“Could this be the first row of bricks in a protectionist wall Trump intends to put up?” Perry asked.

At the very least, the stage looks set for brinkmanship, if not an open trade war.

A duel with pistols drawn

Boeing lawyers expect the imminent threat of tariffs to focus minds in the EU and perhaps to precipitate settlement talks in which they would then have the upper hand.

The top Airbus executive warned that Boeing is on the hook for its own illegal subsidies in the parallel WTO case filed by the EU – and so whatever the U.S. does, the EU can and will match.

“Boeing can try for sanctions. And if they do, we will too,” he said.

In the EU case against Boeing, the last ruling in June found that Boeing had failed to remedy the harm to Airbus from just one set of subsidies: the tax reduction that was part of Washington state’s aerospace incentives.

Boeing has appealed that ruling.

An awkward detail for the EU is that its case against Boeing was filed as a countersuit some nine months after the U.S. filed against Airbus, and so it lags the U.S. case by roughly that amount of time.

The decision on Boeing’s appeal won’t come out until late this year or even next year. In the meantime, the U.S. may act. The Airbus executive dismissed the delay between the cases – “a few months” – as insignificant. He compared it to a pistol duel, where one person gets to fire first, but knows that the other will survive and will get a chance to fire back.

The EU will have plenty of ammunition, he contended. When the time comes to add up the compensation needed, he said the EU will count every airplane Boeing sells, including future sales. “Every sale of a 787 is a subsidized sale and every one will count against Boeing when judgment day comes,” the Airbus executive said.

Trade war consequences

If Boeing’s 15-year pursuit of Airbus at the WTO has been tenacious, the legal attack it launched on Bombardier last April was even more fiercely aggressive. And even though it failed, pushing the case had consequences for Boeing.

Geoffrey Geertz, a researcher on the politics of trade at the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution, pointed out that in the Delta jet sale won by Bombardier’s CSeries that was central to the case, “there wasn’t much at stake” for Boeing because it wasn’t offering its own jets against the smaller aircraft.

Yet pursuing the case alienated both the Canadian and British governments, putting at risk large defense contracts, including a contract to supply Canada with F/A-18 jet fighters valued at more than $5 billion. It also antagonized major commercial-airplane customer Delta. In a subsequent sales campaign in December that mattered much more to Boeing, Delta chose to go with Airbus when it bought100 larger planes.

“Boeing might be rethinking whether that was a miscalculation,” Geertz said.

An open trade war with major economic partners could be even more damaging, not only for Boeing but for the U.S. That’s a belief central to traditional, pre-Trump Republican Party policy.

President Ronald Reagan in 1986 dismissed congressional demands for import tariffs as “flimflammery” and warned against the dangers of protectionism.

The unpredictable consequences of tariffs are evident in the case of REC Silicon, which produces polysilicon, a raw material used in making solar panels, at a $1.7 billion manufacturing plant in Moses Lake.

The Chinese solar-panel industry once imported polysilicon largely from the U.S.

But after an earlier round of the solar-panel trade fight, China in 2014 retaliated by imposing tariffs on U.S. polysilicon that forced REC to cut 500 jobs.

A letter sent to Trump by REC employees in early January said that “now the remaining jobs are at risk” and urged Trump to announce “a comprehensive settlement” with China. Instead, Trump applied new tariffs. The risk is a tit or-tat response.

Last month, in retaliation for the Commerce Department’s initiation in December of a trade case against imports of aluminum sheet from China, the Chinese government started its own case against U.S. exports of sorghum grain to China.

“It signals the possible start of a trade war with China,” said trade lawyer Perry in a newsletter to clients this month. “There is a price to pay for U.S. tariffs and trade actions.”

Fight or settle?

No company is more dependent on free trade than Boeing, which sells both its commercial jets and its defense products worldwide.

Yet Boeing sees itself at a huge disadvantage against Airbus because of the types of subsidies the European jet maker has available.

Yes, Boeing gets tax breaks and so pays less tax on the income from the planes it rolls out each year. But it has to take all the risk and shoulder the multibillion-dollar cost when it develops a new airplane.

Airbus gets upfront government loans amounting to billions of dollars to defray the cost in advance – with no repayment necessary if the new airplane project fails.

Luttig insists that “there is no such thing as free trade unless all of the global industry participants abide by the rules.”

“Free trade is, by definition, trade in accordance with the rules of fair trade,” he added.

Airbus says it wants a different endgame to the WTO case: a negotiated settlement that would reset the rules.

The Airbus legal executive said a multinational deal could lay out agreed limits to government support in the aircraft industry for the long-term future.

“We sit down with all participants in this game, including the Chinese, the Russians, the Japanese, the Canadians, the Brazilians and maybe more, and have a good discussion globally,” he said.

Such an agreement might then constrain China’s behavior as its aviation champion COMAC develops future airplanes to compete against Boeing.

Brookings researcher Geertz said pursuing such a settlement makes sense because “the long-term game for Airbus and Boeing is figuring out what they are going to do about COMAC.”

In an interview at Boeing’s Chicago headquarters before the loss in the Bombardier case, Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg steadfastly eyed his shorter-term target.

“Airbus, as has been determined through the WTO proceedings, has an unresolved more than $23 billion illegal subsidy that still needs to be addressed,” Muilenburg said. “We have to stand on a principle of global fair competition.”

Boeing’s case against Airbus may be stronger than the one against Bombardier.

Still, with one trade-court decision gone awry, Boeing’s leadership must now weigh anew the risks of a trade war against the likelihood that a legal victory could enforce a fair competitive landscape for the future.

BUT TRUMP’S ECONOMIC POLICIES TO DATE HAVE CREATED OTHER RAYS OF LIGHT—A ROARING ECONOMY WITH MANUFACTURING COMING BACK TO THE US—CUTTING TAXES AND REGULATIONS WORKS

As stated in the last blog post, probably the most important development from the trade point of view in the last few months, however, is the passage of the tax bill. Trump’s economic policies along with the Tax Bill are leading to record economic growth and record unemployment.

“The number of companies offering employees higher wages, expanded insurance and retirement benefits and cash bonuses up to $3,000 has surged to 300 as more see benefits from the new GOP tax cuts.

The payouts, praised by President Trump, are going to some 3 million employees.

Again on Thursday at a Massachusetts town hall, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the bonuses “crumbs.”

Not only are companies crediting Trump in their announcements, one major employer, Costco, disputed Democratic sneers that the bonuses are “crumbs” and hide bigger profits.

During a shareholders meeting this week, Costco chief Craig Jelinek said the attack by Pelosi was not “thoughtful.”

According to the National Center for Public Policy Research, the comments came in response to a question from their counsel Justin Danhof. What’s more, said Danhof, Jelinek said that critics were just “throwing stuff out there.”

The Costco executive noted that the wholesaler pays higher than average wages and added that the tax cuts may benefit customers.

The growing list of companies paying so-called “Trump bonuses” is at 300, according to list keeper Americans for Tax Reform and ATR Vice President John Kartch.

ATR President Grover Norquist said, “Every two weeks from February to November Americans will be reminded that one party cut their taxes and raised their pay. And the other tried to stop it.”

According to the Americans For Tax Reform, the actual number today February 23, 2018 is over 400 companies and includes the following companies:

The point is that the entire list of companies providing bonuses, increases in 401Ks and other contributions to both employees and customers because of the tax bill is mind numbing. The entire list can be found at Americans for Tax Reform at https://www.atr.org/list.

One can disagree with President Trump, but the fact is he is putting money back into the average American’s pocket.

The good news keeps on coming. On February 13th Bloomberg reported:

“Optimism among small companies in the U.S. rose more than forecast in January, fueled by a record number of owners who said now was a good time to expand, according to a National Federation of Independent Business survey released Tuesday.

Six of the 10 components that make up the small-business optimism index increased in January, producing one of the strongest readings in the 45-year history of the survey. The figures show sustained, sturdy business sentiment since the November 2016 election. A measure of plans to boost capital spending in coming months increased by 2 points to 29 percent, consistent with other data indicating robust outlays for equipment. One in five small companies said they plan to boost hiring, unchanged from the prior month, as finding qualified workers remains problematic and underscores a tight job market.The new tax law “produced the most recent boost to small-business optimism,” NFIB’s William Dunkelberg and Holly Wade said in a report. “And federal government-related cost pressures continue to abate, offering a more supportive business climate for small firms. Consumer spending remains supportive, and business spending and housing remain strong.”

The bottom line is that many average Americans are being affected positively by the Trump tax bill. This may explain why on February 23rd the Rasmussen Reports stated that Trump’s popularity had shot to 50%. The tax bill is a gift that will keep on giving to Trump and the Republican party.

SECTION 301 CASE AGAINST CHINA ON FORCED TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS

In an attached August 18th Federal Register notice based on an August 14th Presidential Memorandum, 301 INITIATION NOTICEPresidential Memorandum for the United States Trade Representative whitehouseg, President Trump pulled the trigger on the Section 301 Intellection property case against China. The Section 301 investigation could take a year and probably will lead to negotiations with the Chinese government on technology transfer. If the negotiations fail, the US could take unilateral action, such as increasing tariffs, or pursue a case through the World Trade Organization. Unilateral actions under Section 301, however, also risk a WTO case against the United States in Geneva.

The United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) held a hearing on October 10th at the International Trade Commission. During the October 10th hearing, only two US companies appeared to argue that their IP was stolen by Chinese government actions.

Acting Assistant USTR for China Terry McCartin, commenting on the dearth of business witnesses, said some companies had expressed concern “about retaliation or other harm to their businesses in China if they were to speak out in this proceeding.”

On January 18th, it was reported that President Trump was considering a big “fine” as punishment for China’s alleged theft of intellectual property. In an interview, Trump stated,

“We have a very big intellectual property potential fine going, which is going to come out soon.”

Although Trump did not define what he means by “fine,” Section 301 allows the US to impose retaliatory tariffs on Chinese goods or other trade sanctions until China changes its policies.

Trump further stated:

“We’re talking about big damages. We’re talking about numbers that you haven’t even thought about.”

Trump said he will be discussing this action in his State of the Union address on January 30th. Trump also recently stated that he hopes there will not be a trade war with China. “I don’t think so, I hope not. But if there is, there is.”

NAFTA NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUE AND PROBABLY WILL NOT BE TERMINATED

NAFTA negotiations continue and there is hope that the agreement will not be terminated. But no one can say for certain at this time.

As stated in numerous past newsletters, there is another more productive way to solve the Steel crisis and fix the trade problem and help US companies, including Steel and other companies, adjust to import competition. This program has a true track record of saving US companies injured by imports.

This was a problem personally approved by President Ronald Reagan. The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies program does not put up barriers to imports. Instead the TAA for Companies program works with US companies injured by imports on an individual basis to make them more competitive. The objective of TAA for Companies is to save the company and by saving the company it saves the jobs that go with that company.

But as stated in the video below, for companies to succeed they must first give up the mentality of international trade victimhood.

In contrast to TAA for workers, TAAF or TAA for Companies is provided by the Economic Development Administration at the Commerce Department to help companies adjust to import competition before there is a massive lay-off or closure. Yet the program does not interfere in the market or restrict imports in any way.

In addition, the Federal government saves money because if the company is saved, the jobs are saved and there are fewer workers to retrain and the saved company and workers end up paying taxes at all levels of government rather than being a drain on the Treasury. To retrain the worker for a new job, the average cost per job is $50,000. To save the company and the jobs that go with it in the TAA for Companies program, the average cost per job is $1,000.

Moreover, TAA for Firms/Companies works. In the Northwest, where I am located, the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.nwtaac.org/, has been able to save 80% of the companies that entered the program since 1984. The Mid-Atlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.mataac.org, uses a video, http://mataac.org/howitworks/, to show in detail how the program resulted in significant turnarounds for four companies. The reason the TAA for Firms/Companies is so successful—Its flexibility in working with companies on an individual basis to come up with a specific adjustment plan to make them competitive once again in the US market as it exists today. For a sample recovery plan, see http://mataac.org/documents/2014/06/sample-adjustment-plan.pdf, which has been developed specific to the strengths, weaknesses and threats each company faces.

But TAA for Companies has been cut to the bone. On August 22, 2017, the U.S. Commerce Department announced $13.3 Million to Boost Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturers.

Are such paltry sums really going to help solve the manufacturing crisis in the Steel and other industries? Of course not!!

But when the program was originally set up, the budget was much larger at $50 to $100 million. If the program was funded to its full potential, yes steel companies and other companies could be saved.

To those libertarian conservatives that reject such a program as interference in the market, my response is that this program was personally approved by your icon, President Ronald Reagan. He understood that there was a price for free trade and avoiding protectionism and that is helping those companies injured by import competition. But teaching companies how to be competitive is a much bigger bang for the buck than simply retraining workers. And yes companies can learn and be competitive again in the US and other markets.

As stated in many past blog posts, it is easy for Candidate Trump to talk protectionism, but President Trump is now learning it is much more complicated. Trump’s decision to push protectionism endangers his standing with a core constituency—farmers and rural America. As stated below, Trump’s decision to tear up the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) has already had a major negative impact on farmers.

Trump’s call for an economic war with China and other countries is already having a ramification. Trump’s threat to pull out of NAFTA is not helping the US position in the negotiations. Trump simply does not understand the ramifications of the trade deal when he terminated the TPP or when he threatens to tear up NAFTA.

The Trump trade policy is based on one arrogant presumption—the US market is the largest in the World and the rest of the World must kowtow, come on bended knee, to get into the US and that fact gives the US leverage. But that fact is no longer true. The 11 countries in the TPP have a larger market than the US. China has a larger market than the US so the Trump Administration has to be very careful when it plays this card.

In fact, Canada and Mexico already can fall back on trade agreements they have with other countries, such as Europe. The United States does not have that luxury. The US decision by both Trump and the Democrats to go protectionist is further isolating the US in the trade area and is and will have major negative economic ramifications on the US economy. The chickens will come home to roost.

Trump simply did not understand the dynamics of the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) and the ramifications of simply terminating it. During the campaign, Candidate Trump stated that the TPP was a bad deal and if only he led the negotiating the team, it would be a better deal. Thus, Trump argued that the TPP deal should be terminated and the US should then negotiate bilateral deals with the eleven countries in the TPP.

But two major problems with that strategy are becoming very clear. First the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) does not have the personnel to negotiate 11 separate trade deals with the individual countries. It took more than five years to negotiate the TPP. With Trump’s steep cuts to the Government bureaucracy, the government resources simply are not there.

Second, Trump did not understand the dynamics of the TPP deal. During those negotiations, countries could give the US concessions because they would get offsets from other countries and the importance of gaining access to the markets of 11 other countries was worth the concession to the US.

But with no other countries in bilateral deals, the other countries are less willing to make the concessions the US is demanding. In fact, as Robert Lighthizer, the USTR, has discovered, many of the countries in the TPP do not want to have a bilateral deal with the US. They fear and rightly so that the US will demand too much. Much easier to export and import from other countries.

The same problem is happening in the NAFTA negotiations. Trump is threatening to leave NAFTA when he simply does not understand the dynamics of the deal and the devastating impact that such a withdrawal would have on US farmers and also US manufacturing industries, such as the US auto industry. Trade is very complicated and running into the trade area like a bull in a China shop simply creates enormous damage. That damage will be borne by the US agricultural industry and US manufacturers and that means the loss of 1000s if not 100s of thousands of jobs.

Labor unions and working men like the sound of being politically tough on trade and the foreigners, but when jobs are lost, those same people may not like the actual reality of a very protectionist policy. Many American politicians, such as Donald Trump and Senators Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders, like to be tough on trade because foreigners do not vote. But if the economy is hurt by Trump’s trade actions, his base will be hurt and he will not be the next President. So there a lot riding on Trump’s trade policy and his Administration has run straight into the Wall of actual trade reality.

The only saving grace for Trump is that as evidenced by Senators Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders, the Democrats are even more protectionist than Trump. But neither the Democrats nor Trump understand the true ramifications of simply walking away from trade deals that open up foreign markets. The US agricultural industry is now learning those ramifications.

By kowtowing to the Steel industry with its 141,000 jobs, these trade actions could costs thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs in downstream industries and other industries, such as Agriculture. It is time for the United States to wake up to the benefits of trade.

It is also time for the United States to find a way to make its companies more competitive in the US and international markets as they exist now rather than erect protectionist barriers to international competition. See the article on Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies below and how companies, including steel companies, can be saved from import competition by making them competitive again.

USTR has also initiated a section 301 case against forced technology transfers in deals with China. But in an August 30, 2017 article by Dan Harris, my partner, entitled “China US Trade Wars and the IP Elephant in the Room”, Dan states that in over one hundred deals with Chinese companies, he has not seen US companies forced to give over their Intellectual Property (“IP”) by the Chinese government. Instead he has seen US companies make bad decisions leading them to give away their IP by their own volition. If US companies do not protect their IP rights, they will lose them. The US Government cannot protect against stupid mistakes.

Meanwhile, the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum cases remain on hold. The Section 201 case against imports of Solar Cells continues with the ITC hearing being 11 hours long. The United States has intervened in a False Claims Act case against Furniture. Commerce has also issued a circumvention determination in the Aluminum Extrusions case.

More Antidumping and Countervailing Duty and 337 cases have been filed against China and the trade beat goes on.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail address bill@harrisbricken.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

THE WEAKNESS IN DONALD TRUMP’S ECONOMIC POLICY—TRADE

Donald Trump’s political strategy is fight the cultural war, but win the next election because of his economic policy. If jobs and wages are up, more companies move into the US, Trump’s firm belief is that he wins the next Presidential election. Even Michael Moore, the Democratic gadfly, believes that Trump will win reelection by carrying the states that he already won. See https://www.fastcompany.com/40459122/michael-moore-says-trump-is-on-track-to-win-again-in-2020.

There is only one fly in the ointment, flaw in this strategy—Trade. If the Trump trade policy hurts farmers, Trump could lose the rural states: Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, to name a few and that could lead to Trump’s loss in the next Presidential election.

The economic nationalist Steve Bannon, who is credited with helping get Donald Trump elected by in part pushing the American First Trump policy, was recently forced out of the White House. Before he left, however, Bannon made his trade position crystal clear. in an article entitled “Steve Bannon Unrepetent”, in the American Prospect” magazine on August 16, 2017, Bannon stated with regards to trade policy:

“We’re at economic war with China,” he added. “It’s in all their literature. They’re not shy about saying what they’re doing. One of us is going to be a hegemon in 25 or 30 years and it’s gonna be them if we go down this path. . .

Bannon went on to describe his battle inside the administration to take a harder line on China trade, and not to fall into a trap of wishful thinking in which complaints against China’s trade practices now had to take a backseat to the hope that China, as honest broker, would help restrain Kim.

“To me,” Bannon said, “the economic war with China is everything. And we have to be maniacally focused on that. If we continue to lose it, we’re five years away, I think, ten years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we’ll never be able to recover.”

Bannon’s plan of attack includes: a complaint under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act against Chinese coercion of technology transfers from American corporations doing business there, and follow-up complaints against steel and aluminum dumping. “We’re going to run the tables on these guys. We’ve come to the conclusion that they’re in an economic war and they’re crushing us.”

From Bannon’s point of view, trade is economic war.

Although Bannon has since left the White House, President Trump and Commerce Secretary Ross apparently share Bannon’s thinking. On August 22nd, without understanding the ramifications on his voter base, President Trump announced that he might simply cancel NAFTA. Apparently, Trump believes that both Mexico and Canada are winning the economic war against the United States.

On August 28th, in an article entitled “Exclusive: Trump vents in Oval Oﬃce, “I want tariﬀs. Bring me some tariﬀs!”, Axios reported that in the first Oval Office meeting with Chief of Staff John Kelley and the last meeting with Steve Bannon, President Trump stated:

Trump,addressing Kelly, said, “John, you haven’t been in a trade discussion before, so I want to share with you my views. For the last six months, this same group of geniuses comes in here all the time and I tell them, ‘Tariffs. I want tariffs.’ And what do they do? They bring me IP. I can’t put a tariff on IP.” . . .

“China is laughing at us,” Trump added. “Laughing.”

Kelly responded: “Yes sir, I understand, you want tariffs.” . . . .

Staff secretary Rob Porter, who is a key mediator in such meetings, said to the president: “Sir, do you not want to sign this?” He was referring to Trump’s memo prodding Lighthizer to investigate China — which may lead to tariffs against Beijing.

Trump replied: “No, I’ll sign it, but it’s not what I’ve asked for the last six months.” He turned to Kelly: “So, John, I want you to know, this is my view. I want tariffs. And I want someone to bring me some tariffs.”

Kelly replied: “Yes sir, understood sir, I have it.” . . .

Trump made sure the meeting ended with no confusion as to what he wanted.

“John, let me tell you why they didn’t bring me any tariffs,” he said. “I know there are some people in the room right now that are upset. I know there are some globalists in the room right now. And they don’t want them, John, they don’t want the tariffs. But I’m telling you, I want tariffs.” . . . .

Emphasis in the original.

Trump’s statements in this article ring true because during the Presidential campaign, Donald Trump made it very clear that he likes tariffs.

On August 28th, however, George Will in an Op-ed article entitled “Trump, The Novice Protectionist” in Investors Business Daily responded to the Trump trade policy stating:

“Foreigners, however, have their uses. After the president trumpeted that the Dow surpassing the 22,000 mark was evidence of America’s resurgent greatness, The Wall Street Journal rather impertinently noted this: Boeing, whose shares have gained 50% this year and which accounted for 563 of the more than 2,000 points the Dow had gained this year en route to 22,000, makes about 60% of its sales overseas. Boeing has a backlog of orders for 5,705 planes, 75% going outside North America. For Apple, the second-biggest contributor (283 points) to this year’s Dow gain at that point, foreign sales are two-thirds of its total sales. Foreign sales are also two-thirds of the sales of McDonald’s, the third-biggest contributor (239 points).

Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute says that in the last 20 years the inflation-adjusted value of U.S. manufacturing output has increased 40% even though — actually, partly because — U.S. factory employment decreased 5.1 million jobs (29%). . . . Increased productivity is the reason there can be quadrupled output from the same number of workers. According to one study, 88% of manufacturing job losses are the result of improved productivity, not rapacious Chinese.

But those Democrats who think government should fine-tune everything are natural protectionists (Sen. Charles Schumer: “They’re rapacious, the Chinese”) and probably think Trump is too fainthearted because he is not protecting Americans from competition from Americans. . . .”

TRUMP TRADE WAR—THE SIMPLISTIC APPROACH TO TRADE COULD WELL DAMAGE THE US ECONOMY AND DOOM THE TRUMP ECONOMIC PLAN

In the above articles about Bannon’s and Trump’s approach to trade along with the below op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, the Trump trade team reveal the protectionist bent of the Trump Administration, which is based, in part, on blind arrogance and a simplistic approach to trade policy.

The Bannon and Trump approach reveal fatal misunderstandings: trade is a two-way street, and US exports are critical to the wellbeing of Donald Trump’s own constituents. In international trade, what goes around comes around. What the US does to other countries, they can do back to the US.

Moreover, Bannon, Ross and Trump are confusing economic warfare with economic competition. The United States has always strongly believed that economic competition is good for the economy, the country and the US consumer. The bedrock principle of the importance of economic competition to wellbeing of the US economy is the reason the US antitrust laws were enacted. As Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roger Alford of the US Justice Department’s Antitrust Division recently stated on August 30th at a Competition Policy Forum in Shanghai China:

Our continued engagement on this topic is significant for competition enforcement. We are the guardians of strong and vigorous competition for economic prosperity. Our lodestar is to promote competition, not to give preference to specific competitors, even when individual businesses jockey for advantage. . . .

Emphasis added.

Bill Gates believed that Microsoft had to go to war with its competition, but frankly that is why Microsoft produced such good software. CEOs of companies are driven by competition to produce better products at lower prices, which means stronger US companies and prosperity for the US economy and US consumers. Stronger US companies means more jobs at higher wages.

Protecting US companies from international competition does not strengthen the US companies. It weakens them and the poster child for such a point is the US Steel industry, which has had 40 years of protection from steel imports.

This is exactly why President Ronald Reagan was so opposed to protectionism. As President Reagan stated above in June 1986: “Protectionism is destructionism. It costs jobs.”

Moreover, Steve Bannon and Donald Trump have not figured out one important point: Not only do companies compete against each other and States compete against each other, but the United States and other countries compete against each other. The US decision to go the Protectionist route means it has given up competing, and, therefore, it will lose the economic war. Trump’s and Bannon’s combined with the Democrat’s protectionist policies mean the US will lose the economic war because of its decision to look inward and no longer compete in the international economic marketplace.

US companies do not get stronger by protecting them from international competition, which simply promotes the mentality of international trade victimhood. US companies get stronger by looking inward and working harder to become internationally competitive. See the article about Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies below.

The arrogance of the Steve Bannon and the Trump trade policy is based on the principle that the United States is the largest market in the World, and this gives the US leverage and, therefore, countries must kowtow and bend their head to get into the US market. Although that principle may have been true twenty years ago, it is simply no longer true.

The Trans Pacific Partnership, for example, combines the markets of 12 countries, now 11 with the US exit, into one “huge” trading block. Since Mexico, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand are part of that block, the TPP market is a much larger market than the US alone. Mexico and Canada are also in a stronger trade position than the US because they already have free trade agreements with a number of other countries, including the EC, and that gives them a substantial competitive advantage getting into those markets. This fact gives Canada and Mexico leverage in the NAFTA negotiations even though Trump, Lighthizer and Ross simply do not understand the dynamics of the deal.

Maybe this is a major reason US companies move to Mexico and Canada to get better access to other foreign markets. The United States is competing with other countries too.

Also in many ways, with 1.37 billion people China has a larger market than the US. In 2006, at a speech in Beijing, the US Commercial Attaché stated that 75% of all Chinese, including rural Chinese, have a color television set. Now that is close to 95% of 1.37 billion. That is a larger market than the US with its 323 million.

Also the upper class and upper middle class in China, which numbers between 250 to more than 300 million, have an income closer to the US and that segment of the China market is the same size, if not larger, than the US. That is why in the push for the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”), House Speaker Paul Ryan used to state that 75% of the World’s consumers are outside the United States.

But China is also not this overwhelming behemoth with an economic juggernaut that is going to crush the US. Yes, it may have a larger market, but on a per capita basis, it is much smaller. Thus, the US per capita income on average is $57,000 where the Chinese per capita income is $8,000. China has its own problems—keeping its people happy and fed.

Along with these problems, China has major weaknesses, which can be exploited by the US. China has a very high personal tax rate, which can be as high at 45%. This high tax rate is why many Chinese have emigrated to the US, looking for a lower tax rate and a better opportunity to keep the money they earn. If Trump can drive taxes lower, that may result in more entrepreneurs and businesses moving to the US, e.g. Foxconn.

Another problem is the Chinese government’s strict control of information flowing into China by its very strong control of the internet. Strict control of the internet stops knowledge flowing into China, which especially hurts the country’s high tech sector. When information and knowledge stop, economies do not do as well. The free flow of knowledge and ideas is critical for the most advanced economies and yet that is not true in China.

But arrogance is one of the great sins because it blinds you to all options. To make a better deal in trade negotiations, the Administration has to do its homework and first understand the actual American interest. If one is going to make America great again, one must first understand what is the nature of America’s interest in trade. This requires understanding the dynamics of the trade deal in question, which President Trump prides himself in doing. The Trump Administration must understand the actual trade deal closely, the US leverage points and the US weaknesses, what trade deals will help the US and the what trade deals will hurt the US interest. Donald Trump’s failure in trade negotiations is to understand the dynamics of the deal and the leverage that the US has in trade negotiations. In other words, with regards to trade, Trump simply does not understand “The Art of the Deal”.

In ripping up the TPP without even trying to renegotiate, Trump failed his own test because he did not understand the elements of the deal. Trump’s philosophy was to do away with multilateral deals because they fall to the lowest common denominator and do only bilateral deals because that gives the US more control over the deal and if the country does not live up to its side of the bargain cancel the deal.

The problem with that approach is first the US government does not have the personnel at USTR, which is very lean and mean, to negotiate 11 separate trade deals with all the countries in the TPP. It took more than 5 years to negotiate the TPP.

But secondly and more important, in recent bilateral negotiations, Canada, Mexico and Japan have all told the US do not assume that in bilateral deals or NAFTA, the United States will get the same deal it would have gotten in the TPP. In fact, as indicated below, many countries in the TPP simply do not want to do a bilateral deal with the US—too much work. Canada, Mexico and Japan were willing to give the US a better deal because they would gain access to a much greater market, the market of 11 additional countries. That gave countries the political ability to play one national interest against another national interest. Thus, Canada could give in to the US on dairy products because of the potential access to the much larger TPP market, including the Japanese and US markets. Thus, countries in the TPP could use tradeoffs with other countries to open their markets further to US exports. Those trades offs and the market access to the markets of 12 different countries does not exist with a bilateral deal with just the US.

On August 24, 2017, in an article entitled “Revived TPP may exclude trade concessions sought by US”, Nikkei, a Japanese newspaper, stated:

TOKYO — Japan is proposing suspending trade concessions made to the U.S. as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership in order to resurrect the pact with the 11 remaining members.

Tokyo sounded out that proposal to other nations in the “TPP 11,” as those members became known after the U.S. withdrew from the deal. Senior negotiators will cite items they wish to see shelved during three days of talks starting Monday in Australia.

Washington had secured a number of major concessions from other nations in exchange for lower American tariffs on their exports. Though President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal, those concessions remain on the TPP’s books — to the consternation of other members.

If all the 11 participants agree unanimously, any such concession would be put on hold, and national regulations governing that element of the pact would remain in place.
But the suspensions would be lifted if and when the U.S. decides to return to the partnership.

While the remaining members are leaning toward keeping the lower tariffs agreed on among the initial group, they are likely to revisit specific trade rules.

The U.S. sided with major domestic drug companies and settled on an effective eight-year window before competitors can have access to proprietary pharmaceutical data. That moratorium exceeds international standards, and other countries think it would impede development of cheap generics. All members of the TPP 11 are expected to agree on freezing that provision.

Other provisions that may be suspended involve copyright protection periods, fair-competition policies governing state-owned enterprises and the opening of government procurement to foreign capital.

American exports would face a competitive disadvantage if an 11-member TPP goes into force. Tokyo hopes that U.S. meat industry leaders will speak up in favor of rejoining the trade deal.

Trade is the one weak link in Trump’s economic plan. As indicated below, the decision to kill the TPP has already had a major negative impact on US agriculture and part of Trump’s base, the rural states, where agriculture is king.

SIMPLICITY IS OFTEN A GOOD TRADE POLICY BUT NOT WHEN THE POLICY IS SIMPLE MINDED AND NARROWLY FOCUSED

Trump has slowed down the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum Investigations because its “complicated”, but when Bannon and Trump take a very simplistic, black and white view of trade, it is extremely dangerous to the US economy and Donald Trump’s own constituents.

This is not a fight between Globalism and America First. The America First strategy requires the Administration to understand deeply the interest of the United States and the interest of all the significant US industries in trade negotiations, including agriculture, not just the narrow Steel and Aluminum Industries. The Trump and Bannon statements indicate a deep failure to analyze why Trump won the election and what the interest of the entire United States is in trade negotiations and also the interest of Donald Trump’s own constituents, the voters that elected Donald Trump President.

Bannon thinks that if we create a trade war with China and are tough on them we will win the economic trade war with China. But Bannon truly has forgotten why voters elected Donald Trump.

First, it was not just the US Steel and Aluminum industries that put Trump in the White House, it was the working man in many manufacturing plants throughout the United States. Because of their economic, black white view of the World, Trump and Bannon want to put up barriers to steel imports to protect the US Steel industry and its 141,000 jobs without realizing the damaging impact of such an action on the millions of jobs in the downstream steel consuming industries. Truthfully, if Donald Trump is going to be reelected, Trump himself, his trade team and Steve Bannon cannot be so simple minded.

More importantly Donald Trump also won because of farmers. Although Trump won the States in the Blue Wall, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, he was also able to win the Presidency because he won the US heartland, including the states of Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Arizona, Oklahoma, Utah and Florida. What do those states have in common and in common with Wisconsin—Agriculture. And the Trump trade policy is and has seriously hurt US farmers because US farmers are dependent on exports.

As the US Wheat Federation stated in the Section 232 Steel case, half of US wheat is exported. Putting up protectionist walls invites retaliation against US agricultural exports.

Finally, one other point in direct response to Steve Bannon’s and Trumps statement, substantial trade relations prevent real shooting wars. As indicated below in the Section 301 article, China is becoming more amenable on North Korea because of its enormous trade relationship with the United States. The total US China trade relationship is $578.6 billion with $115.8 billion in US exports and $462.8 billion in imports from China.

In direct contrast, the US trade relationship with Russia is much, much smaller. The total US Russia trade relationship is $38.1 billion with $11.2 in US exports and $27 billion in imports from Russia. Truly peanuts in the global trade market. It is better to compete with countries in the economic arena as compared to a real war, where millions die.

DEMOCRATS MORE PROTECTIONIST THAN DONALD TRUMP

The only saving grace for Donald Trump on trade is that the Democrats are even more protectionist. On August 13th, Senator Chuck Schumer, who heads the Democrats in the Senate, told John Catsimatidis on his New York AM 970 radio show “The Cats Roundtable” that he is closer now to President Donald Trump than he ever was with former President Barack Obama on trade. Senator Schumer stated:

“Trade is the thing [China cares] most about, and they’ve been treating us very badly on trade for a long time, frankly,. I was closer in trade views to Donald Trump than I was to either George Bush or Barack Obama, on China anyway. I think we were much too easy on them. But if we got tough on them now, maybe they would relent, but we have to be real tough. So far, the administration has not been as tough as they should be, as far as I’m concerned.”

The Trump Administration should be very tough with China on trade, but it should carefully analyze what its true interests are and the interests of US voters that elected Donald Trump. The US government should do everything in its power to drop barriers to US exports in China and other countries. But protectionism for protectionism’s sake will not cure the problems of US manufacturing and right the US China trade balance

TRUMP’S TRADE WAR HURTS US AGRICULTURE AND US FARMERS

As mentioned in prior newsletter, the ox that will be gored by Trump’s trade policy is agriculture and that is just what is happening. On August 7, 2017, in the attached extensive article entitled “Trump’s Trade Pullout Roils Rural America”, Trump’s Trade Pullout Roils Rural America – POLITICO Magazine, Politico did its homework and described in detail the deep negative impact of the Trump trade policy on US agriculture:

EAGLE GROVE, Iowa—On a cloud-swept landscape dotted with grain elevators, a meat producer called Prestage Farms is building a 700,000-square-foot processing plant. The gleaming new factory is both the great hope of Wright County, which voted by a 2-1 margin for Donald Trump, and the victim of one of Trump’s first policy moves, his decision to pull out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

For much of industrial America, the TPP was a suspect deal, the successor to the North American Free Trade Agreement, which some argue led to a massive offshoring of U.S. jobs to Mexico. But for the already struggling agricultural sector, the sprawling 12- nation TPP, covering 40 percent of the world’s economy, was a lifeline. It was a chance to erase punishing tariffs that restricted the United States—the onetime “breadbasket of the world”—from selling its meats, grains and dairy products to massive importers of foodstuffs such as Japan and Vietnam.

The decision to pull out of the trade deal has become a double hit on places like Eagle Grove. The promised bump of $10 billion in agricultural output over 15 years, based on estimates by the U.S. International Trade Commission, won’t materialize. But Trump’s decision to withdraw from the pact also cleared the way for rival exporters such as Australia, New Zealand and the European Union to negotiate even lower tariffs with importing nations, creating potentially greater competitive advantages over U.S. exports.

A POLITICO analysis found that the 11 other TPP countries are now involved in a whopping 27 separate trade negotiations with each other, other major trading powers in the region like China and massive blocs like the EU. Those efforts range from exploratory conversations to deals already signed and awaiting ratification. Seven of the most significant deals for U.S. farmers were either launched or concluded in the five months since the United States withdrew from the TPP.

“I’m scared to death,” said Ron Prestage, whose North Carolina-based family pork and poultry business made its huge investment in the plant near Eagle Grove in part to reap expected gains from the TPP. “I don’t guess I’ve gone beyond the point of no return on the new plant, but we did already start digging our wells and started moving dirt.”

He and other agricultural business people and workers have reason for concern.

On July 6, the EU, which already exports as much pork to Japan as the United States does, announced political agreement on a new deal that would give European pork farmers an advantage of up to $2 per pound over U.S. exporters under certain circumstances—a move which, if unchecked, is all but certain to create a widening gap between EU exports and those from the United States.

European wine producers, who sold more than $1 billion to Japan between 2014 and 2016, would also see a 15 percent tariff on exports to Japan disappear while U.S. exporters would continue to face that duty at the border. For other products, the deal essentially mirrors the rates negotiated under the TPP, which the United States has surrendered, giving the EU a clear advantage over U.S. farmers.

The EU’s deal is all the more noteworthy because American farmers were relying on the TPP—to which the EU was not a member—to give them an advantage over European competitors. But in a further rebuke to the United States, Tokyo decided within a matter of weeks to offer the European nations virtually the same agricultural access to its market that United States trade officials had spent two excruciating years extracting through near-monthly meetings with their Japanese counterparts on the sidelines of the broader TPP negotiations; the United States is now left out.

The EU, which also recently inked a deal with Vietnam, is now moving forward with talks with Malaysia and is in the process of modernizing a pre-existing trade deal with Mexico.

Meanwhile, a bloc of four Latin-American countries—Mexico, Peru, Chile and Colombia, known as the Pacific Alliance—is quickly becoming the leading force for free trade in the region, announcing near the end of June it would commence its own negotiations with New Zealand, Australia and Singapore, heedless of its neighbor to the north.

On its own, Australia, which in 2015 cut a deal to undersell the United States in beef exports to Japan, announced another round of scheduled tariff cuts with Japan. Without the TPP, Australian ranchers eventually will enjoy a 19 percent tariff advantage over U.S. competitors. Australia is also prioritizing the conclusion of trade talks with Indonesia, the largest nation in Southeast Asia by gross domestic product.

The remaining 11 TPP countries have already met two times, with a third meeting planned, to move ahead with the revival of the deal without the United States. The so- called TPP-11 would be in direct response to Trump’s trade policy. Economic forecasts already show projected gains for countries involved. Canada, according to one estimate, could permanently gain an annual market share of $412 million in beef and $111 million in pork sales to Japan by 2035, because lower tariffs would enable it to eclipse America’s position in the market.

As China, which was never a part of the TPP, senses blood in the water, it is moving quickly to assert itself, rather than the United States, as the region’s trade arbiter. China is aiming to close talks by the end of this year on its behemoth Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership—a trade agreement involving 15 other Asia-Pacific countries.

None of these deals are yet in effect. But already there are signs that competitors are gaining market share over U.S. producers in the post-TPP landscape, as Pacific nations take a closer look at alternatives to U.S. exporters.

Over the first five months of 2017, U.S. exports to Japan of chilled pork, which is preferable to frozen meat, are up 2 percent over the previous year. But exports of chilled pork from Canada, a prime competitor, are up 19 percent. Likewise, in frozen pork, U.S. exports are up 28 percent. But exports from the EU, the leading competitor, are up 44 percent.

Japan, which saw the TPP not only as a source of economic growth but a counterweight to China, is now taking the lead in salvaging the deal. Its goal is to have some sort of agreement between the 11 other countries in place for the annual summit of Asia-Pacific leaders in November. Trump is expected to attend, creating the awkward possibility that he will witness all the handshakes and back slaps as his fellow leaders congratulate themselves on a deal.

For his part, Trump once promised a slew of “beautiful” deals to replace the TPP, but his administration has yet to lay out a detailed strategy. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer told lawmakers that an analysis is underway to determine where it makes most sense to pursue negotiations.

In the meantime, Lighthizer, a trade attorney who pressured Japan to voluntarily restrain its steel exports when he was a trade official in the 1980s, said Tokyo should just go ahead and lower their tariffs without expecting anything in return.

“I think in the areas like beef and the others, they ought to be making some unilateral concessions, at least temporary concessions,” he told lawmakers in June. “And I don’t quite understand why that doesn’t happen.”

Lighthizer said the administration still hopes to strike bilateral trade deals—that is, separate agreements with individual countries—but he conceded that “some of the TPP countries don’t want to do bilaterals.” The value of the TPP for many countries was that they could justify giving up protective tariffs in exchange for their own access to the markets of a wide pool of countries; many are unwilling to make such concessions for the smaller gains of a bilateral deal.

Lighthizer acknowledged that even Japan, at least for the time being, may not be interested in one-on-one negotiations with the U.S. . . .

That leaves workers in 13,000-person Wright County, whose survival depends largely on agriculture, with relatively few signs of optimism. Trump’s decision to walk away from the TPP has stoked uncertainty about U.S. trade policy and, more notably, the president’s commitment to rural America.

“He fooled a lot of people,” said Sandy McGrath, mayor of Eagle Grove, who is not affiliated with any party and did not support Trump. . . .

But the plant’s success will depend largely on export opportunities. More than 26 percent of the pork produced in the U.S. in 2016 was exported to foreign markets. And more than $1.5 billion of the nearly $6 billion in U.S. pork exports in 2016 headed for Japan.

“At the time those investment decisions were made, the U.S. had never turned down a free trade opportunity,” said Dermot Hayes, an agricultural economist at Iowa State University, referring to the Prestage plant and other pork-industry investments.

Hayes said the livestock industry had in its sights a future of expansion amid soaring export growth. After Trump’s withdrawal from the TPP, “that has pretty much disappeared,” he said. . . .

In April, when Trump was on the verge of withdrawing from NAFTA, Maier said he watched corn prices plummet in anticipation of the president’s decision. Trump relented, at the request of Perdue, the agriculture secretary, who appealed to the president with colorful maps showing the president’s base was largely concentrated in states that heavily rely on agriculture.

Ultimately, Trump agreed to renegotiations with Canada and Mexico instead. But Maier remains wary that, despite pledges by the administration to “do no harm” for agriculture, the mere act of reopening the deal with Canada and Mexico, the two largest destinations for U.S. agricultural exporters, could mess up what has been a very good thing for American farmers in the Midwest.

“Farmers are willing to open up NAFTA, but if we open up NAFTA, there’s the risk of going backwards,” he said. . . .

The Obama administration, backed by a large cadre of free-trade Republicans, used that reality to grow support for the TPP among businesses and agricultural interests eager to grab a better foothold in a fast-growing area of the world where the U.S. has few formal trade deals.

But through the slow churn of negotiations, the dazzlingly complex deal among 12 countries soon fell victim to time and circumstance. After more than five years of talks, bleary-eyed trade negotiators were finally able to close the deal at an Atlanta hotel on October 5, 2015. But the agreement quickly became mired in election politics. Labor unions and blue-collar voters declared it to be a successor to NAFTA, which was blamed for the loss of factories. And while the U.S. trade commission predicted the deal would be broadly beneficial to the overall economy, some areas including food and agriculture were predicted to score more gains than others.

Even as supporters of the deal insisted it would put U.S. manufacturers on a stronger footing versus overseas competitors by enforcing higher labor and environmental standards, Trump and Bernie Sanders used anti-TPP fervor as a key plank of their campaign platforms, declaring that it would cost America jobs. Even Hillary Clinton, normally a supporter of freer trade, turned on the deal, saying she wanted to negotiate better terms.

Trump escalated his rhetoric on trade after the primaries and Congress, which has final say on trade deals, shied away from bringing TPP up for a vote. After Trump’s victory, the fate of the deal in the GOP-controlled Congress was all but sealed as Republican lawmakers put it aside to concentrate on tax reform and a bid to roll back Obamacare.

On his first full day in office, Trump signed an executive order withdrawing from the TPP, calling the action a “great thing for the American worker.”

“The Trans-Pacific Partnership is another disaster done and pushed by special interests who want to rape our country, just a continuing rape of our country,” Trump said during a campaign stop in Ohio. “That’s what it is, too. It’s a harsh word: It’s a rape of our country.” . . .

But even as Iowa was voting for Trump by 51 percent-42 percent, its farmers were looking to Asia as their savior. . . .

But despite Trump’s intense personal interest in trade, the White House has been slow to build the dream team of negotiators the president promised on the campaign trail. Lighthizer, who once served as a deputy U.S. trade representative under President Ronald Reagan, was confirmed on May 11. The people tapped to serve in the agency’s three deputy positions await confirmation, as does the administration’s pick for chief agriculture negotiator.

Iowa’s Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley says he thinks a trade deal with Japan would make up for much that was lost for agriculture by dropping TPP, but it will take “a lot more personnel, a lot more time to get it done, a lot more separate actions by Congress.”

As far as the administration’s strategy to get there, Grassley, who still owns his farm in Butler County, Iowa, said he hasn’t gotten much direction.

“I asked Lighthizer maybe a month ago in a meeting, and I didn’t get an answer,” Grassley said in a recent interview. “In a sense he answered, but not very definitively because their policy isn’t established.” . . .

Maybe the lesson of TPP demise for the protectionist firebreathers is be careful what you wish for. The negative ramifications of not doing the TPP appear to be infinitely higher than doing the trade deal.

NAFTA NEGOTIATIONS

On August 16th, United States, Canada and Mexico sat down together for the first round of talks to formally reopen NAFTA. On July 17th, the USTR released its attached “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation”, USTR NAFTA RENGOTIATION OBJECTIVES.

But Trump keeps stirring the pot with his anti-NAFTA rhetoric. On August 22nd, during a speech in Phoenix President Trump announced that he might simply cancel NAFTA.

As Politico stated on August 23rd, “Trump’s threat of NAFTA withdrawal lose its edge”:

“Canada and Mexico appear to have reached a conclusion that when President Donald Trump threatens to withdraw from NAFTA, it is a negotiating ploy that is all bark and no bite. . . .

Instead, concerns were raised from within the United States government, where officials and lawmakers who support the deal see little value in the president repeatedly going to the well of harsh rhetoric in a way that makes the United States’ negotiating position more difficult.

“I don’t know a single person with a working brain cell that thinks that’s a good idea,” said one U.S. government source close to the talks, referring to renewing the threat of terminating the deal. “It’s a stupid message to send during the negotiations.”

Part of the reason Mexico and Canada might be less intimidated by Trump’s bluster is that they have plenty of other trading partners to fall back on if the relationship with the U.S. sours. Both countries have separate deals in place with the European Union — Mexico is currently ramping up talks to update theirs — and both are part of the effort to reboot the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which the remaining 11 members are pushing toward completion even without the U.S.

But after Trump cast aside the TPP almost immediately upon taking office, the U.S. has fewer such options to fall back on — so pro-NAFTA lawmakers and those from export- dependent states have repeatedly urged him to focus on modernizing and updating NAFTA, rather than terminating it.

House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady — whose home state of Texas counts Mexico as the No. 1 market for its exports, followed by Canada — cautioned Trump on Wednesday to be more aware of the effects his words have on the country’s trade relationships.

“The president’s rhetoric is red-hot, and it creates real impact,” Brady said during a town hall discussion at AT&T headquarters in Dallas. “I think the rhetoric, the words from the president matter, so I’d like to see that take a different approach in tone.”

Brady, whose powerful committee oversees trade on Capitol Hill, is one of a core group of Republicans whose support will be crucial if the administration succeeds in renegotiating a new deal with Canada and Mexico, since it will likely have to go through Congress for approval . . ..

The political question is whether Trump would discard NAFTA in the face of what certainly would be fierce resistance from Congress and industries like agriculture, which would take a significant hit in that event amid a sustained downturn in the farm economy.

Back in April, intense lobbying from the Hill and on the farm helped talk Trump down from inking a prepared executive order to withdraw from the deal. News of the planned order sparked such a public outcry and flurry of reaction in support of the deal that business and trade insiders sometimes refer to it as “Black Wednesday.” . . .”

Meanwhile, a chorus of industries are telling the Administration not to be so tough in the NAFTA negotiations because tweaks are fine, but the failure of the NAFTA deal would be disastrous to US industry and US agriculture. On August 10th Automobile and Auto Parts makers urged the Administration to cool down the rhetoric on rules of origin for automobiles and auto parts because major changes to automobile rules of origin through NAFTA modernization could have the unintended consequence of making North America’s auto industry less competitive. As Charles Uthus, vice president of international policy at the American Automotive Policy Council, the main lobbying arm of U.S. auto companies in Washington, stated:

“It’s the highest automotive rule of origin anywhere that you can find. It’s already extremely rigorous, very difficult to meet as it is. To actually strengthen it, there is a huge risk of unintended consequences.”

Ann Wilson, senior vice president of government affairs for MEMA, stated:

“Our members really struggle with finding a connection between changing the rules of origin and the reshoring of jobs. They do not see that connection.”

On August 17th Politico reported that Trump’s tough rhetoric has created intense hatred in Mexico, which will make it politically very difficult for Mexico to make concessions or agree to a deal that would clearly benefit the US. Thus, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto is not afraid to walk away from the table if needed, potentially overturning the entire U.S.-Mexico bilateral trade relationship in the process.

Again, Trump does not understand the dynamics of the deal and the fact that since Mexico has more trade agreements than the US, it has leverage and is not afraid to walk away from the table.

Thus, both Mexico and Canada are resisting US pressure for a new “national content” provision in NAFTA’s auto trade rules to encourage more parts to be made in the United States. As Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo stated:

“It will not be best practice to introduce that kind of rigidities into the industrial process. It’s not good for American companies. It’s not good for Mexican companies.”

Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland also stated: “Canada is not in favor of specific national content in rules of origin”.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Dairy Producers stated that they will fight any U.S. effort to duplicate in NAFTA the dairy concessions secured through TPP negotiations. As Yves Leduc, director of policy and international trade for the Dairy Farmers of Canada, stated, “Not a possibility – as far as we are concerned, we would never agree to that.”

The small amount of dairy access that Canada granted the U.S. during the TPP talks – equal to 3.25 percent of Canada’s domestic milk production – was balanced out by concessions Canada secured in negotiations involving all of the 11 other countries. Those circumstances don’t apply to NAFTA, which involves only three countries. As Leduc stated, “To ask us to open up our market to allow more subsidized goods from the U.S. to enter the Canadian market, the answer is simple: It’s no.”

Meanwhile, US famers joined with Canadian and Mexican farmers to urge US negotiators to not let specific demands undermine the market access US farmers and ranchers enjoy under the existing agreement. Although all three groups want to lower trade barriers to exports and imports, it was their unified position to defend existing market access that was most notable, given the fear on the farm that Trump could use agriculture as a bargaining chip to satisfy his obsession with reducing America’s trade deficit in manufactured goods.

THE PHRASE “FREE BUT FAIR TRADE” IS A FRAUD BECAUSE COMMERCE HAS SO DEFINED DUMPING AS TO FIND ALMOST EVERY IMPORT DUMPED

In an article along the same lines as the Bannon article and the Trump quote, on August 1, 2017, Commerce Secretary Wibur Ross penned an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “Free Trade Is a Two Way Street”. In the article, Commerce Secretary Ross argued that many countries erect barriers to US exports, but then went on to state:

“Both China and Europe also bankroll their exports through grants, low-cost loans, energy subsidies, special value-added tax refunds, and below-market real-estate sales and leases, among other means. Comparable levels of government support do not exist in the U.S. If these countries really are free traders, why do they have such formidable tariff and nontariff barriers?

Until we make better deals with our trading partners, we will never know precisely how much of our deficit in goods is due to such trickery. But there can be no question that these barriers are responsible for a significant portion of our current trade imbalance.

China is not a market economy. The Chinese government creates national champions and takes other actions that significantly distort markets. Responding to such actions with trade remedies is not protectionist. In fact, the World Trade Organization specifically permits its members to take action when other countries are subsidizing, dumping and engaging in other unfair trade practices.

Consistent with WTO rules, the U.S. has since Jan. 20 brought 54 trade-remedy actions— antidumping and countervailing duty investigations—compared with 40 brought during the same period last year. The U.S. currently has 403 outstanding orders against 42 countries.

But unfortunately, in its annual reports, the WTO consistently casts the increase of trade enforcement cases as evidence of protectionism by the countries lodging the complaints. Apparently, the possibility never occurs to the WTO that there are more trade cases because there are more trade abuses.

The WTO should protect free and fair trade among nations, not attack those trade remedies necessary to ensure a level playing field. Defending U.S. workers and businesses against this onslaught should not be mislabeled as protectionism. Insisting on fair trade is the best way to ensure the long-term strength of the international trading system.

The Trump administration believes in free and fair trade and will use every available tool to counter the protectionism of those who pledge allegiance to free trade while violating its core principles. The U.S. is working to restore a level playing field, and under President Trump’s leadership, we will do so.

This is a true free-trade agenda.”

Let me begin by saying no one has a problem with US government actions challenging foreign, including Chinese, barriers to US exports. Every Administration be it Republican or Democrat has taken a tough stance to drop foreign barriers to US exports. In fact, many Senators and Congressmen are pressuring the Trump Administration for more free trade agreements because they remove barriers to US exports. The TPP, Trans Pacific Partnership, would have dropped tariffs down to 0 on more than 18,000 products exported by US companies, many agricultural products.

Although no one doubts that the Chinese market is significantly distorted, many foreign markets and in some cases US markets are significantly distorted. The US steel market with the many outstanding trade orders blocking steel imports is a good example of a significantly distorted market in which the US price for steel is much higher than the World market price.

Also no one doubts that many countries subsidize their exports or dump in the US market. For many years, the Commerce Department was able to find very high dumping rates on Japanese imports in antidumping cases by using price to price comparisons, which found that Japanese prices were significantly higher, sometimes four times higher, than US prices for the same Japanese product. That is classic dumping using higher prices in the home market to fuel lower prices to the United States.

The Japanese companies were able to use dumping because the Japanese Government erected non-tariff trade barriers to block imports from the US and other countries creating very high domestic Japanese prices. To protect its mikan /tangerine industry, for example, for many years Japan blocked all imports of citrus fruit. But it is also interesting to note that there are no outstanding countervailing duty/anti-subsidy orders against Japanese products.

The Chinese governments, especially the local governments, also subsidize their exports and provide low interest loans to their companies, but so does the US government, through its subsidies in the Agriculture area, and the State Governments, which will waive state income taxes or help with low interest loans, to encourage production of companies, such as Foxconn, to move to their states.

But the US Countervailing Duty law applies to China now and the Commerce Department has not been shy in finding Chinese imports into the United States to be subsidized. It should be noted, that the WTO has overturned 28 US Countervailing Duty cases against China, in part, because the WTO has ruled that Chinese state-owned companies are not necessarily the Chinese government itself, as the Commerce Department has ruled.

The US too has state-owned companies, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, which provides electricity to certain parts of the US. Should foreign governments assume that all electricity from the TVA is subsidized because it is owned by the US government?

The major problem, however, is the Commerce Department’s application of the antidumping law.

In the 1980s, James Bovard authored a book called the “Fair Trade Fraud”, which outlined many of these same problems in the US antidumping law. But nothing has changed. Instead Commerce has just developed new methodologies to increase antidumping rates even higher.

Moreover, the same economic warfare arguments were made about Japan in the 1980s. Although China does not have clean hands, that does not mean that every single import from China is unfairly traded. In fact, I would argue that a significant percentage, if not the majority, of imports from China are fairly traded. The Chinese government simply does not care about the Chinese Mushroom, Honey, Crawfish or Shrimp industries and does not set the prices for those products or any of the inputs. Does the Chinese government really care about the price of cow manure in China, a major input for mushrooms?

Remember Commerce over decades has so distorted the US antidumping law that it finds dumping in 100% of the cases from China because it refuses to look at actual prices and costs in China. If you have a hanging judge, does that mean every single import from China is dumped/unfairly traded?

Instead, Commerce should start easing the restrictions on the market economy status of China so as to determine which Chinese companies are truly dumping in the US market and nail them to the wall. Commerce should make its antidumping cases against China mirror actual reality in China, not for the Chinese companies, but for US importers and downstream customers.

Right now, because of its refusal to use actual prices and costs in China, neither Donald Trump, nor Wilbur Ross nor the Commerce Department know which Chinese companies are truly dumping and which Chinese companies are not. Until Commerce starts uses actual prices and costs in China, no one will know which Chinese company is truly dumping,

Finally, the Commerce Department decision to tilt the playing ground and find dumping in every antidumping and countervailing duty case against China and also against almost all every other foreign county has created a situation so that the public perception is that almost every import into the US is dumped. These hanging judge decisions fuel the protectionist/isolationist political rhetoric in the United States badly damaging US industry and agriculture. It has also led to a mentality by many US companies of international trade victimhood. We poor US companies simply cannot compete in the international or US market because all foreign exports and US imports are subsidized or dumped.

Instead, US companies want to rely on US government issued protectionist walls to protect themselves from competition rather than finding a way to make the US companies competitive again. See the article on Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies below.

SECTION 232 STEEL AND ALUMINUM CASES STALLED

The Section 232 Steel and Aluminum cases continue to be stalled. On August 21ST, Politico reported:

“WHITHER THE NATIONAL SECURITY STEEL INVESTIGATION? White House chief strategist Steve Bannon’s departure from the White House . . tipped the balance of Trump’s economic advisers firmly toward the more centrist “globalist” wing – and that could mean that two reports examining whether to limit imports of steel and aluminum for national security reasons could be indefinitely delayed. The Commerce Department has prepared a report on its findings that is circulating among agencies, but the administration has decided to dial down the investigations as it turns its attention to tax reform . . . .

Part of the reason is the departure of Bannon, who had been a major proponent of the move. But the decision to put off the investigations was also made in part because of opposition from business groups and Republican lawmakers who were worried it would hurt steel users and the broader economy, the news report said. .

Although President Donald Trump and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross thought they had found a panacea, cure all, for US trade problems, using Section 232 National Security cases to put large tariffs and/or quotas on Steel, Aluminum and other raw material products, something happened on the way to the Trump trade heaven—reality. The major problem is that the steel industry has only 141,000 jobs at stake while downstream steel users have millions of jobs at stake.

In the past Secretary Ross has stated that the Section 232 case is meant to fill the gaps created by the patchwork of antidumping and countervailing duties on foreign steel, which he said have provided only limited relief to the U.S. industry.

Under the terms of the executive order, an interagency group will present a report to the White House within 270 days that identifies goods that are essential for national security and analyzes the ability of the defense industrial base to produce those goods.

If the Secretary reports affirmatively, the President has 90 days to determine whether it concurs with the Secretary’s determination and “determine the nature and duration of the action that, in the judgment of the President, must be taken to adjust the imports of the article and its derivatives so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security.”

Although Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross pledged to get the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum reports to President Trump’s desk by the end of June, that did not happen as the Administration began to realize the impact a broad tariff on steel or aluminum raw material inputs would have on downstream steel and aluminum users, which are dependent on high quality, competitively priced steel products to produce competitive downstream products made from steel and aluminum.

In response to the delay in the Section 232 Steel case, American steel industry executives appealed directly to President Donald Trump for immediate import restrictions because steel imports have surged back to 2015 levels. As the letter states:

“The need for action is urgent. Since the 232 investigation was announced in April, imports have continued to surge. Immediate action must meaningfully adjust imports to restore healthy levels of capacity utilization and profitability to the domestic industry over a sustained period.”

The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), an industry trade group, reported on Wednesday that total steel imports through July this year were up 22 percent from the same period a year ago, with imports taking 28 percent of the U.S. market.

In the letter, Steel company executives from Nucor Corp., U.S. Steel, ArcelorMittal and Commercial Metals Co. said the sustained surge of steel imports into the United States had “hollowed out” much of the domestic steel industry and was threatening its ability to meet national security needs.

“Your leadership in finding a solution to the crisis facing the steel industry is badly needed now. Only you can authorize actions that can solve this crisis and we are asking for your immediate assistance.”

The collateral damage to the many US producers that produce downstream steel products created by any across the board tariffs on steel imports makes it very difficult for the Administration to use a broad brush to fix the steel problem. That is the problem with purely protectionist decisions. They distort the US market and simply transfer the problems of the steel industry to other downstream industries.

But does that mean the US government should simply let the US Steel industry and other manufacturing industries die? The election of Donald Trump indicates politically that simply is not a viable option.

Although Joseph Schumpeter in his book Capitalism, Socialism and Demcracy coined the term “creative destructionism”, which conservatives and libertarians love to quote, they do not acknowledge the real premise of Schumpeter’s book that capitalism by itself could not long survive. Schumpeter himself observed the collateral damage created by pure capitalism.

So what can be done for the steel and other manufacturing industries? Answer work with the companies on an individual basis to help them adjust to import competition and compete in the markets as they exist today. Moreover, there is already a government program, which can serve as a model to provide such a service—the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies Program.

What is the TAA for Companies secret sauce? Making US companies competitive again. Only by making US manufacturing companies competitive again will the trade problems really be solved. US industry needs to stop wallowing in international trade victimhood and cure its own ills first before always blaming the foreigners. That is exactly what TAA for Companies does—helps US companies cure their own ills first by making them competitive again.

As stated above, there is another more productive way to solve the Steel crisis and fix the trade problem and help US companies, including Steel and other companies, adjust to import competition. This program has a true track record of saving US companies injured by imports.

The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies program does not put up barriers to imports. Instead the TAA for Companies program works with US companies injured by imports on an individual basis to make them more competitive. The objective of TAA for Companies is to save the company and by saving the company it saves the jobs that go with that company.

But as stated in the video below, for companies to succeed they must first give up the mentality of international trade victimhood.

In contrast to TAA for workers, TAAF or TAA for Companies is provided by the Economic Development Administration at the Commerce Department to help companies adjust to import competition before there is a massive lay-off or closure. Yet the program does not interfere in the market or restrict imports in any way.

Moreover, the Federal government saves money because if the company is saved, the jobs are saved and there are fewer workers to retrain and the saved company and workers end up paying taxes at all levels of government rather than being a drain on the Treasury. To retrain the worker for a new job, the average cost per job is $5,000. To save the company and the jobs that go with it in the TAA for Companies program, the average cost per job is $1,000.

Moreover, TAA for Firms/Companies works. In the Northwest, where I am located, the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.nwtaac.org/, has been able to save 80% of the companies that entered the program since 1984. The Mid-Atlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, http://www.mataac.org, uses a video, http://mataac.org/howitworks/, to show in detail how the program resulted in significant turnarounds for four companies. The reason the TAA for Firms/Companies is so successful—Its flexibility in working with companies on an individual basis to come up with a specific adjustment plan to make them competitive once again in the US market as it exists today. For a sample recovery plan, see http://mataac.org/documents/2014/06/sample-adjustment-plan.pdf, which has been developed specific to the strengths, weaknesses and threats each company faces.

“WASHINGTON – U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross today announced $13.3 million in U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) grants to support 11 Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers (TAACs) in California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington that help manufacturers affected by imports adjust to increasing global competition and create jobs.

“The Trump administration is working every day to help America’s manufacturers, their workers, and their communities,” said Secretary Ross. “This funding is one element of a government-wide effort to restore American jobs and strengthen U.S. manufacturing.”

The 11 grants include:

$1.7 million to the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, for the Great Lakes Trade Adjustment Assistance Center

$1.2 million to the Mid-Atlantic Employers’ Association, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, for the Mid-Atlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center

$978,000 to the New England Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, Inc., North Billerica, Massachusetts

$1.1 million to the Research Foundation, State University of New York Binghamton, for the New York, New Jersey and Puerto Rico Trade Adjustment Assistance Center

$1.2 million to the University of Colorado at Boulder for the Rocky Mountain Trade Adjustment Assistance Center . . .

$1 million to the University of Missouri–Columbia for the Mid-America Trade Adjustment Assistance Center …

$1.2 million to the Trade Task Group, Seattle, Washington, for the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center…

EDA’s Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms program funds 11 Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers across the nation. The centers support a wide range of technical, planning, and business recovery projects that help companies and the communities that depend on them adapt to international competition and diversify their economies. . . .

The mission of the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) is to lead the federal economic development agenda by promoting competitiveness and preparing the nation’s regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy.” . . .

Are such paltry sums really going to help solve the manufacturing crisis in the Steel and other industries? Of course not!!

But when the program was originally set up, the budget was much larger at $50 to $100 million. If the program was funded to its full potential, yes steel companies and other companies could be saved.

To those libertarian conservatives that reject such a program as interference in the market, my response is that this program was personally approved by your icon, President Ronald Reagan. He understood that there was a price for free trade and avoiding protectionism and that is helping those companies injured by import competition. But teaching companies how to be competitive is a much bigger bang for the buck than simply retraining workers. And yes companies can learn and be competitive again in the US and other markets.

In the attached article entitled “Steel Competitiveness Seriously?”, Steel Competitiveness, William J. Bujalos, the head of the Mid-Atlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, makes the proposal to expand the program to help large manufacturing companies, including steel producers. Mr. Bujalos states:

“Current reports suggest that the nation’s steel industry is experiencing a rebound – a rebound driven by a growing collective confidence about America’s economic future.

That’s all good but irrelevant because confidence is not a strategy for growing the nation’s global competitiveness. What is relevant is the extent to which our companies are able to grow other much more important things, like metrics critical to their competitive success. Do that and the power of any confidence index won’t matter.

Let me explain. Since 1998 I have been leading the nation’s Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms (TAAF) program in the Mid-Atlantic region. My business experience during the last 50 years has yielded insight into the kinds of things that have the highest probability for success at reversing an enterprise’s negative fortunes irrespective of the competitive battlespace that they’ve chosen to play in. Prior lives involved corporate management in both private and public sectors (large and small companies) in a wide variety of markets that included: management consulting, chemicals, plastics, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, automotive systems, battery tech and steel – and I’ve learned that there are some things that are universal …

For example, I’m a believer that, for businesses of all stripes, there is only one true asset to be quantified and listed on the Balance Sheet – knowledge. Nothing else really matters at the end of the day. And the overarching value of TAAF is that it is this nation’s singularly effective business model that injects it directly into a company’s bloodstream over an extended period of time, i.e. half a decade. That sort of holistic, long-term approach yields the biggest chance for success because it has a high probability of permanently upgrading a company’s core DNA.

In my view steel companies don’t operate in markets that are fundamentally any different from markets in general. No markets are forgiving. No customer base is loyal. Some players don’t play fair. No amount of investment is worth it if indigenous leadership is of poor quality. So as a direct consequence, all companies that are serious about permanently enhancing their global competitiveness must achieve mastery over stuff like: competitive intelligence, customer intelligence, market dynamics intelligence, costs/managerial finance, talent/leadership development, product development, planning effectiveness, etc., etc., etc.

In other words: it’s the knowledge stuff that’s critical and little else. And in my humble opinion, focusing the attributes that TAAF brings to the table on that industry on a larger scale would yield stunning results.

The TAAF business model places its nationwide network of Trade Adjustment Centers (i.e. TAACs) in the unique position of being the right catalyst at the right place at the right time. Does it always work? Certainly not. What does? But it works better than just about anything else in America’s tool kit. It is unique. And here’s the kicker, we don’t ask for equity. On behalf of the American taxpayer we simply insist on pure, unadulterated, robust, and relentless commitment from the Chief Executive Officer down to the shop floor. Absent that? Well, it’s unfortunate but some companies probably should fail.

This approach really works, without costing a great deal of money or causing economic disruption while at the same time providing our political establishment the cover it needs to smooth passage of critical treaties – and, because a company must match our injection dollar-for-dollar throughout the process, the American taxpayer is assured of management’s total and focused commitment for one simple reason … they share in the risk!

Bottom line? The long-term holistic approach is effective. The business model, stipulating unique strategies addressing each company’s unique circumstances, is effective. The program’s neutral economic impact is effective. It’s ability to support passage of trade agreements while not impeding the benefits of free trade is effective. It’s ability to lessen the costs associated with the engagement of outside expertise to reengineer critical business processes is effective.

And I firmly believe that it’s application is not limited to America’s smallest makers – only its funding is. For several decades that’s been little more than an afterthought.

Consider …

All manufacturing companies were at one time small ones.

All manufacturing companies are impacted by globalization.

Small ones need outside expertise to teach them basic stuff.

Larger ones need outside expertise to teach them sophisticated stuff.

Small makers, because they’re learning the basics and have little resources to tap, take a longer time to turn the corner.

Larger makers, because the basics are already inculcated and they have the requisite resources at hand, can turn the corner at much higher speed.

And if you were the Chief Executive of a tier-one domestic manufacturer, would you doubt for a minute –

That your supply chain probably has several thousand companies in it?

That extensive improvement in their performance would have a significantly positive impact on your performance?

Improvement in the performance of the small cohort will increase the probability that fewer will fail because a greater proportion will grow into larger ones – driving concomitant growth in good-paying manufacturing jobs and the creation of wealth. Go ahead. Beat that with a stick!”

For those who would simply dismiss the idea as impossible and too simplistic, watch the video. The program works. See http://mataac.org/howitworks/.

In an attached August 18th Federal Register notice based on an August 14th Presidential Memorandum, 301 INITIATION NOTICEPresidential Memorandum for the United States Trade Representative whitehouseg, President Trump pulled the trigger on the Section 301 Intellection property case against China. The Section 301 investigation could take a year and probably will lead to negotiations with the Chinese government on technology transfer. If the negotiations fail, the US could take unilateral action, such as increasing tariffs, or pursue a case through the World Trade Organization. Unilateral actions under Section 301, however, also risk a WTO case against the United States in Geneva.

The notice states that the USTR will specifically investigate the following specific types of conduct:

“First, the Chinese government reportedly uses a variety of tools, including opaque and discretionary administrative approval processes, joint venture requirements, foreign equity limitations, procurements, and other mechanisms to regulate or intervene in U.S. companies’ operations in China, in order to require or pressure the transfer of technologies and intellectual property to Chinese companies. Moreover, many U.S. companies report facing vague and unwritten rules, as well as local rules that diverge from national ones, which are applied in a selective and non-transparent manner by Chinese government officials to pressure technology transfer.

Second, the Chinese government’s acts, policies and practices reportedly deprive U.S. companies of the ability to set market-based terms in licensing and other technology-related negotiations with Chinese companies and undermine U.S. companies’ control over their technology in China. For example, the Regulations on Technology Import and Export Administration mandate particular terms for indemnities and ownership of technology improvements for imported technology, and other measures also impose non-market terms in licensing and technology contracts.

Fourth, the investigation will consider whether the Chinese government is conducting or supporting unauthorized intrusions into U.S. commercial computer networks or cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, trade secrets, or confidential business information, and whether this conduct harms U.S. companies or provides competitive advantages to Chinese companies or commercial sectors.”

The United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) will hold a hearing on October 10th at the International Trade Commission and public comments are to be submitted by September 28th.

“I have been called by reporters at least a half dozen times in the last couple of weeks regarding the Trump Administration’s planned investigation of China’s IP practices. But what I tell these reporters fits so badly with THE narrative that my name is not showing up in print. Sorry, but I can’t help it.

Here’s the situation. The Trump Administration is claiming that China’s government forces American companies to relinquish its IP to China and my problem is that despite my firm having worked on literally hundreds of China transactions that involve IP, I have very little proof of this. So no real story there.

Here though is the story as seen from my eyes and from the eyes of the China attorneys at my firm, readily conceding that we have not seen even close to everything.

We have never been involved in a China transaction where it has been clear to us that the Chinese government has forced our client to relinquish its IP to China. We have though been involved in a million transactions where the Chinese party on the other side — sometimes a State Owned Entity, but way more often not — has vigorously and aggressively sought to get our client to part with its IP for a very low price. Is the Chinese government behind this sort of pressure? Don’t know? Probably sometimes, but probably most of the time not. If the transaction involves rubber duckies, we can assume not. If it involves next generation computer chips, well that is probably a very different story.

Anyway, as we write on here so often, there are many terrible technology transfer and other sorts of IP deals to be had with Chinese companies and we have too often — even against our China attorneys’ clear counsel to our clients not to do it — seen our clients make bad deals that will involve them turning over their IP with little to no chance of receiving full value for it. But these companies have not been forced, not in the sense that any government was forcing them to do anything. These companies were simply willing to take huge risks either because they could not grasp the risks or because they felt they had no other choice for financial reasons.

A Chinese company that intends to violate a licensing agreement and run off with the foreign company’s IP will usually have a very clear plan. What the China lawyers in my office call the Standard Plan works as follows. First, the Chinese company will negotiate in a way that guarantees a weak license that cannot be enforced against them by the foreign party. The tricks used to do this are quite standardized. Second, the Chinese company will ensure that it does not make any (or else it makes very few) payments until after it has already received the technology. If the Chinese company makes any payment at all, it will make a minimal number of payments, usually late and in violation of the agreement and then once it has received enough of the technology it seeks, it will cease making any payments entirely.

When our China attorneys encounter a Chinese company clearly working on the Standard Plan, we warn our clients. However, it is also typical for our clients to nonetheless want to forge on ahead. The client will usually explain how their situation is unique and that means the Chinese could not possibly be planning to breach.

Due to a partnership relationship, the foreign side often wrongly believes it is somehow better protected against IP theft. The foreign side then lets down its guard, only to learn that its China partner has appropriated its core technology. This sense of partnership is most common with SMEs and technology startups, especially those companies whose owner is directly involved in the relationship with the Chinese entity.

Well for what it is worth, I will no longer describe technology companies as a whole as our dumbest clients when it comes to China. No, that honor now clearly belongs to a subset of technology companies: Internet of Things companies. And mind you, we love, love, love Internet of Things companies. For proof of this, just go to our recent post, China and the Internet of Things: A Love Story. Internet of Things (a/k/a IoT) companies are sprouting all over the place and they are booming. Most importantly for us, they need a ton of legal work because just about all IoT products are being made in China, more particularly, in Shenzhen. And just about all IoT products need a ton of complicated IP assistance.

So then why am I saying they are so dumb about China? Because they are relinquishing their intellectual property to Chinese companies more often, more wantonly, and more destructively than companies in any other industry I (or any of my firm’s other Chinese lawyers) have ever seen. Ever. And by a stunningly wide margin.

I then list out the following as “my prime example, taken from at least a half dozen real life examples in just the last few months”:

IoT Company: We just completed our Kickstarter (sometimes Indiegogo) campaign and we totally killed it and so now we are ready to get serious about protecting our IP in China.

One of our China Lawyers: Great. Where are you right now with China?

IoT Company: We have been working with a great company in Shenzhen. Together we are working on wrapping up the product and it should be ready in a few months.

China Lawyer: Okay. Do you have any sort of agreement with this Chinese company regarding your IP or production costs or anything else?

IoT Company: We have an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) that talks about how we will cooperate. They’ve really been great. They have told us that they would enter into a contract with us whenever we are ready.

China Lawyer: Can you please send us the MOU? Have you talked about what that contract will say?

IoT Company: Sure, we can send the MOU. It’s one page. No, we haven’t really talked much beyond just what we need to do to get the product completed.

China Lawyer: Okay, we will look at your MOU and then get back to you with our thoughts.

Then, a day or two later we a conversation like the following ensues:

China Lawyer: We looked at your “MOU” and we have bad news for you. We think there is a very good chance a Chinese court would view that MOU as a contract. (For why we say this, check out Beware Of Being Burned By The China MOU/LOI) And the Chinese language portion of the MOU — which is all that a Chinese court will be considering — is very different from the English language portion. The Chinese language portion says that any IP the two of you develop (the IoT company and the Chinese manufacturer) belongs to the Chinese company. So what we see is that as things now stand, there is a very good chance the Chinese company owns your IP. This being the case, there is no point in our writing a Product Development Agreement because your Chinese manufacturer is not going to sign that.

IoT Company: (And I swear we get this sort of response at least 90 percent of the time) I’m not worried. I think you have it wrong. I’m sure that they will sign such an agreement because we orally agreed on this before we even started the project.

China Lawyer: That’s fine, but I still think it makes sense for you to at least make sure that the Chinese company will sign a new contract making clear that the IP associated with your product belongs to you, because if they won’t sign something that says that, there is no point in our drafting such a contract and, most importantly, there is no point in your paying us to do so.

So far not a single such IoT company has been able to come back to us with an agreement from their Chinese manufacturer to sign.

Again, no government force, just an overzealous and insufficiently careful foreign company.

Now before anyone excoriates me for ignoring reality, let me say that I have read about instances where the Chinese government has “forced” foreign companies to turn over their IP to China; high speed rail is an often cited example of that. And I do not doubt that it happens in critical industries (nuclear power would be another example). And I am also not unaware of how China is increasingly forcing foreign companies to store their data in China, which absolutely puts technology at risk. But even in these instances the foreign company has some choice. Not good choices, I know. And arguably it is no choice at all when the decision is between doing business in China or not. The last thing I want to do is get all philosophical on anyone regarding what constitutes choice so I will leave it to our individual readers to determine for themselves where on the continuum of force and choice they want to put any and all of the above.

There is plenty to complain about how China protects IP and there is plenty to complain about how China protects foreign companies that do business in China or with China, but I am just not sure complaining about forced IP transfers goes at the top of that list for most American companies. When I talk with American and European and Australian companies about China their biggest legal complaint is invariably how expensive it is for them to comply with China laws and how they resent that their Chinese competitors generally are not held to the same legal standards.

I was introduced as an expert, and I’d like to qualify that by saying do not think of myself as an expert. I am just a private practice lawyer who represents American and Australian companies and some European and Canadian companies as well in China.

I’m going to tell you a little bit about what we do so you can get a little bit better perspective of where I’m coming from on this. The bulk of my firms’ clients are small and medium-size businesses, mostly American businesses, but some European and Australian and Canadian businesses as well. Most of them have revenues between 100 million and a billion a year. Our clients are mostly tech companies, manufacturing companies and service businesses.

About 20 percent of our work is for companies in the movie and entertainment industry. We have some clients in highly-regulated industries, like health care, senior care, banking, insurance, finance, telecom and mining, but those companies make up less than ten percent of our client base.

Most of the China work we do for our clients is relatively routine. We help them register as companies in China. We register their trademarks and copyrights in China. We draft their contracts with Chinese companies. We help them with their employment, tax and customs matters. We oversee their litigation in China, and we represent them in arbitrations in China. We help them buy Chinese companies.

For our clients, the big anti-foreign issue is whether they will be allowed to conduct business at all in China as that is certainly not always a given. Certain industries in China are shut off or limited to foreign businesses acting alone. For our clients, publishing and movies are most prominent.

Essentially anything that might allow for nongovernmental communication to or between Chinese citizens is problematic, but it is not clear to me that these limitations are intended to be anti-foreign, as China does not really want any private entities, foreign or Chinese, engaging in these activities without strict governmental oversight.

So do these limits against foreign companies arise from anti-foreign bias or just the Chinese government’s belief that it can better control Chinese companies? To our clients, that distinction doesn’t matter.

On day-to-day legal matters, our clients are almost invariably treated pursuant to law, and so long as they abide by the law, they seldom have any problems. The problem for our clients isn’t so much how the Chinese government treats them; it’s how they are treated as compared to their Chinese competitors who are less likely to abide by the laws and more likely to get away with it.

I have no statistics on this. I doubt there are any statistics on this, but I see it and I hear it all the time.

I see it when one of our clients buys a Chinese business that has half of its employees off the grid and has facilities that are not even close to being in compliance with use laws, and I know foreign companies cannot get away with that.

And I hear it from Chinese employees of our clients who insist that there is no need for our clients to follow various laws. They insist there is no need to follow various laws and to do so is stupid. Is this disparity due to anti-foreign bias or is it due to corruption? Again, for our clients, the answer is irrelevant.

Is the Trump administration’s IP investigation a negotiating ploy done as much to get at disparate treatment as it is to get at forced technology transfers? I do not think it is, but some who know more about such things tell me it may be.

Beijing has other ways of getting its hands on valuable commercial information. Officials often insist on taking a close look at technology that foreign companies want to sell in China.

“Chinese government authorities jeopardize the value of trade secrets by demanding unnecessary disclosure of confidential information for product approvals,” the American Chamber of Commerce in China said in a report published in April.

Some experts say that handing over technology has effectively become a cost of doing business in China — a market too big for most companies to ignore.

“Many Chinese companies go after technology hard and the tactics they use show up again and again, leading us to believe there is some force (the government?) teaching them how to do these things,” said Dan Harris, a Seattle-based attorney who advises international companies on doing business in China.

“The thing is that the foreign companies that give up their technology usually do so at least somewhat of their own volition,” he told CNNMoney. “Yes, maybe they need to do so to get into China, but they also have the choice not to go into China, right?”

Closing the stable door?

Other analysts say that the U.S. administration is coming to the problem too late.

“Intellectual property (IP) theft is yesterday’s issue,” wrote Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“In part because of past technology transfer and in part because of heavy, sustained government investment in science and research, China has developed its own innovative capabilities,” he wrote.

“Creating new IP in the United States is more important than keeping IP from China.”

These are really complicated issues and I realize the above is more of a stream of consciousness “thoughts dump” than a coherent position paper. So more than ever, I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.”

Dan’s point is that it is often bad negotiating tactics by the US side that leads to companies giving away their technology, not Chinese government pressure.

On August 15th, Investors Business Daily speculated that “Trump’s Trade War With China Is War On North Korea By Other Means” stating:

“But they [the Chinese government] may have underestimated Trump: He has the will, and likely the political support, for an even-more damaging war with China over trade. With the U.S. China’s largest market — in 2016, U.S. imports from China totaled nearly half a trillion dollars — a trade war is a serious threat to China, which is already showing signs of economic slowing.

That’s what’s behind Trump’s sudden decision to investigate China’s rampant theft of U.S. intellectual property. And on trade grounds only, Trump is right to investigate this, since it’s enshrined in both U.S. law and international trade treaties that egregious trade violations warrant retaliatory actions if the violations aren’t fixed.

The U.S. has been jawboning China on this for years, to no effect. China for years has seen the U.S. as a paper tiger, too feckless to act on its own behalf. Now, Trump is showing it otherwise. . .

Once again, Trump the savvy business negotiator seems to know his foe’s weak points.

Perhaps hoping to stall Trump’s trade action, China announced that it would cease North Korean imports of coal, iron and lead, and seafood, starting Sept. 5, in keeping with U.N. sanctions imposed on Kim Jong Un’s regime.

In a joint statement Monday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security Advisor Gen. James Mattis made explicit the link between China, trade and North Korea: “China is North Korea’s neighbor, sole treaty ally and main commercial partner,” they wrote. “Chinese entities are, in one way or another, involved with roughly 90% of North Korean trade. This affords China an unparalleled opportunity to assert its influence with the regime.”

The clear message: If you support North Korea’s regime economically, we’ll hurt you economically in return. It’s a Trumpian twist on Von Clausewitz’s famous dictum about war and politics: “(A trade) war is the continuation of politics by other means.”

As we’ve said before, we take a back seat to no one in advocating on behalf of free trade. But when one side routinely and systematically steals hundreds of billions of dollars worth of intellectual property, that’s no longer free trade. It’s piracy. . . .

North Korea’s nuclear blackmail, aided by China’s patronage, is not acceptable. If it takes trade sanctions to get China’s diplomatic attention, so be it. It’s time that China’s charade over its support of North Korea comes to an end.”

On August 8th, in an article entitled “Second Thoughts on Trade with China” William Galston for the Wall Street Journal stated:

“It is China’s techno-nationalism that poses the greatest threat to our future. In 2006 the Chinese government adopted a long-term plan to promote what it called “indigenous innovation.” As James McGregor, a leading expert on the Chinese economy, writes, China’s leading-edge firms were directed to obtain technology from their multinational partners through “co-innovation and re-innovation based on the assimilation of imported technologies.”

In practice, this meant giving American firms an offer Don Corleone would have recognized—either to “share their technologies with Chinese competitors—or refuse and miss out on the world’s fastest-growing market.” China’s ultimate goal is to use forced technology transfer to replace the U.S. as the world’s leading economy. . . .

Existing legal tools may not suffice to end these discriminatory practices. Although the WTO prohibits mandatory technology transfers, the Chinese government’s position is that trading technology for market access is purely a business decision. Protectionist government purchases are a key part of China’s strategy. . . .

If turning over our technological crown jewels to a foreign power is against the national interest, then our government should have the power to prevent it. But wielding this power without blowing up the international trade regime will not be easy.”

On August 21st, in an editorial entitled “Yes, China Steals U.S. Intellectual Property, But That Doesn’t Mean Trade With China Is A Bad Thing” Investors Business Daily tempered its initial response on the Section 301 case stating:

“Everyone is angry at China right now, and perhaps with good reason. China’s regime often bends trade rules to its own needs, and breaks them or ignores them when it’s convenient. . . .

The U.S. shouldn’t tolerate cheating on trade, by China or anyone else. It’s a matter of jobs and income for Americans and the companies that employ them.

Even so, that doesn’t mean everything China has done has been bad for the U.S. Far from it.

A new study, ” How Did China’s WTO Entry Benefit U.S. Consumers?” from the prestigious National Bureau of Economic Research, shows why. It notes that from the time China joined the World Trade Organization in 2000 to 2006, the U.S. inflation index for factory goods fell an estimated 7.6%.

This might not sound like a lot, but it is. “The resulting savings were large,” the study says. “U.S. manufacturing sector production was valued at $4.5 trillion in 2014, so if prices had been 7.6% higher, that production would have cost $340 billion more.”

That is, profits for U.S. firms were likely billions of dollars higher over that six-year period than otherwise. And prices to American consumers fell.

How did this happen? The simple answer is freer trade. China cut its average tariff on manufacturing inputs from 15% in 2000 to 9% in 2006, a 40% reduction. Meanwhile, China’s government lifted export limits on its domestic companies, got rid of capital requirements, eased restrictions on foreign investment, raised its limits on textile exports and lowered the number of goods that required import licenses.

The result: China’s factory exports to the U.S. surged 290% from 2000 to 2006.

According to the study, “69% of the growth was driven by new exporters offering a widening variety of products, while 16% was created by incumbent firms exporting new products.”

The lower tariffs and other reductions in trade restrictions led to a Chinese productivity boom, with an average 10% per year gain in productivity for Chinese companies that exported to the U.S. As for the price of U.S. manufactured goods, about two-thirds of the 7.6% reduction in factory prices here was due to China’s tariff cuts.

But didn’t the food of Chinese factory-made goods to the U.S. decimate American manufacturing during this period? That’s a myth. As the U.S. Federal Reserve’s monthly manufacturing index shows, from 2000 to 2006 American factory output rose a healthy 11.5%. It wasn’t decimated by the surge in Chinese exports to the U.S. It only crashed when the financial crisis hit.

For its part, China’s communist government in the early 2000s found that taking its hands off the economy’s windpipe and engaging with the rest of the world through trade was an effective strategy for making its economy grow. We also benefited from that.

Now the Trump administration is warning an increasingly hostile China that its recent trade violations aren’t acceptable. China, in response, has blasted the U.S. for its “protectionism.”

We hope a negotiated solution can be found. At the same time, we might want to think seriously about it before we back a giant U.S.-China trade war that could make all of us, Americans and Chinese, much worse off.”

In early 2000, China’s brilliant economic guru Premier Zhu Rongyi believed that China should join the WTO, not for the benefit of the United States or Europe, but for the benefit of China. Premier Zhu realized that China would benefit from free trade by breaking down its own protectionist walls, which isolated China from the rest of the World.

It is somewhat ironic that the United States is apparently moving in the opposite direction, building protectionist walls to protect its companies from foreign competition. Many US politicians have fallen into the trap of international trade victimhood because they simply do not understand the benefits of free trade to the United States.

SECTION 201 SOLAR CELLS CASE

On May 17, 2017, Suniva filed a Section 201 Escape Clause against all Solar Cell imports from all countries at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”). On May 23, 2017, in the attached Federal Register notice, ITC iNITIATION NOTICE SOLAR CELLS, the ITC decided to go ahead and institute the case. If the ITC reaches an affirmative determination, within 60 days the President must decide whether or not to impose import relief, which can be in the form of increased tariffs, quotas or an orderly marketing agreements.

At the ITC, Section 201 cases are a two stage process. The ITC must first determine whether “crystalline silicon photovoltaic (“CSPV”) cells (whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products) are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported articles.” The ITC has determined that the investigation is “extraordinarily complicated” and will make its injury determination within 128 days after the petition was filed, or by September 22, 2017. The Commission will submit to the President the report required under section 202(f) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 2252(f)(1)) within 180 days after the date on which the petition was filed, or by November 13, 2017.

Prehearing briefs and posthearing briefs have been filed at the ITC and the ITC hearing was held on August 15th and was reportedly 11 hours long.

If the ITC reaches an affirmative determination, it will go into a remedy phase and the hearing in that phase will be on October 3, 2017. Attached is the ITC public prehearing staff report, 2017.08.01 ITC Solar 201 Prehearing Report PUB.

The Staff Report shows that imports are up, value of imports are down, but US producers’ production and capacity have increased during the period of investigation 2012-2016. Moreover, US producers’ profits and sales have increased in the period. This is a very mixed staff report with no clear trends and could lead to a negative ITC injury determination on September 22nd.

Meanwhile, sixteen US senators have urged the ITC to consider how the increased tariffs on foreign solar cells could hurt the broader domestic solar industry. The letter specifically stated:

“We respectfully request that the commission carefully consider the potential negative impact that the high tariffs and minimum prices requested would have on the tens of thousands of solar workers in our states and on the hundreds of companies that employ them.”

On July 26, 2017, in the attached memorandum, prc-aluminum-extrusions-ar-072617, the Commerce Department published in the Federal Register a notice of affirmative final determination of circumvention of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the People’s Republic of China. The Department determined that heat-treated extruded aluminum products that meet the chemical specifications for 5050 grade aluminum alloy, regardless of producer, exporter, or importer, constitute later-developed merchandise, are circumventing the orders.

As a result of the Department’s anti-circumvention determination, all heat-treated extruded aluminum products from the People’s Republic of China that meet the chemical specifications for 5050 grade aluminum alloy are considered to be in-scope merchandise and must be included in responses to the Department’s questionnaires.

FALSE CLAIMS ACT—FURNITURE

In a previous blog post, I mentioned that the real hammer against transshipment of products to evade trade orders is not recent legislation from Congress, but the False Claims Act. Under the False Claims Act, private parties can file suits in Federal District Court alleging fraud on the US government because of foreign exporters and US importers decision to use transshipment and other methods to evade US antidumping and countervailing duties. Under the FCA, the relator can look back at 10 years of past imports and the antidumping duties in question can be over 100, 200 or even 300%. Under the FCA the remedy is triple damages and when looking at imports over such a long period of time, the remedy can result in enormous payouts.

The private party files an FCA complaint as a relator on behalf of the US government. The US government then decides whether or not to intervene in the case. If the US government chooses to intervene, the relator is entitled to 15 to 25% of the recovery of the US government. In one small FCA case here in Washington regarding medical bills, a clerk at a hospital received a payout of $2 to 3 million so anyone can be a relator.

More on point, In an intervention complaint, US GOVT INTERVENTION BLUE FURNITURE CASE, the US government intervened in a False Claims Act filed against evasion of millions of dollars in antidumping duties on imports of wooden bedroom furniture from China.

The lawsuit brought by University Loft Co., an Indiana-based wooden bedroom furniture company, accuses Florida-based Blue Furniture Solutions LLC, founder and president and its chief financial officer of importing wooden bedroom furniture from China without paying the 216.01 percent anti-dumping rate by making false statements to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”).

In doing so, Blue Furniture escaped paying millions of dollars in duties and fees owed to the federal government from 2011 through 2015, the suit says.

The complaint states:

“To avoid the payment of anti-dumping duties and fees, defendants conspired with their Chinese manufacturers and exporters to fraudulently avoid customs duties and underpay fees owed to the United States by making false representations in entry documents about the nature and value of the imported merchandise.”

Specifically, the complaint states that Blue Furniture falsely identified its entries to Customs and Border Protection with codes and descriptions for merchandise that are not subject to antidumping duties. But the complaint states that many of the wooden chests, dressers, nightstands, wardrobes and many of the beds imported were subject to antidumping duties.

In addition, the FCA complaint accuses the Florida-based company of instructing its China-based manufacturers and exporters how to mislabel and misclassify the merchandise on documents to be shown to CBP.

NEW TRADE CASES

ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES

STAINLESS STEEL FLANGES FROM CHINA

On August 16, 2017, the Coalition of American Flange Producers and its individual members, Core Pipe Products, Inc., and Maass Flange Corporation filed new antidumping and countervailing duty cases against imports of Stainless Steel Flanges from China and India.

On August 29, 2017, Sharp Corporation and Sharp Electronics Corporation filed a section 337 case against imports of Wi-Fi Enabled Electronic Devices. The respondent companies named in the complaint are:

If you have any questions about these cases or about Trump and Trade, including the impact on agriculture, the impact on downstream industries, the Section 232 and 301 cases, the 201 case against Solar Cells, US trade policy, the antidumping or countervailing duty law, trade adjustment assistance, customs, False Claims Act or 337 IP/patent law, please feel free to contact me.

This blog post contains several new article and articles that have been posted on the Harris Moure blog, www.chinalawblog.com from the HM Trade Practice Group, including Adams Lee, Emily Lawson and myself. The new articles also reflect my discussions during my recent three-week trip to China meeting with various Chinese companies, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”), and Chinese trade lawyers.

The most important point is that the US China Trade War is expanding and has now become a universal trade war. Although the US continues to bring numerous antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) cases against China, the Chinese government is now bringing and will bring numerous AD and CVD cases against the US.

In the recent Chinese antidumping case against Distiller Grains from the US, the Chinese government has levied a 33% rate against $1.6 billion in US exports to China. There are rumors that the Chinese government may soon bring AD and CVD cases targeting $15 billion in US exports of soybeans to China.

Meanwhile numerous countries have adopted their own AD and CVD laws modeled on the US and EU and are bringing cases not only against China, but also against the US.

The only recent trade developments that would break the retaliation cycle are the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the TTIP deal with Europe and both trade agreements are in serious trouble.

In addition, set forth below are articles on how to spot an AD and CVD trade case coming and what do when your company is a target of a trade case, magnesium and steel cases, trade cases against Europe, and Trade Adjustment Assistance by David Holbert, who heads the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center. In addition, there are a number of articles on Customs law, False Claims Act, including an FCA case against Furniture and Customs enforcement action against Honey. Finally, there is an article on recent Second Circuit Decision in the Vitamin C Antitrust Case and the antidumping back story, a Criminal Trade Secrets case, a new 337 case and the Section 337 article translated into Chinese.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my new e-mail address bill@harrismoure.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

TRADE POLICY AND TPP

US CHINA ANTIDUMPING TRADE WAR IS NOW A UNIVERSAL ANTIDUMPING TRADE WAR

As Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton duel during the Presidential debate about who can be more protectionist, during my recent trip to China I learned that what was once a US China Trade War has now become a universal trade war. Country after country have adopted the US and EC Antidumping law and are filing case after case against other countries and the US.

Thus countries, such as EC, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, India, Turkey, Ukraine, Russia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia Thailand, South Africa, and Vietnam, all are filing antidumping and countervailing duty cases against each other and the United States. These countries have adopted the US law which finds dumping in 90% of the cases. The US and the EC have created a Frankenstein in the antidumping law and the whole World has adopted it.

Although Donald Trump, Hilary Clinton and many US politicians want to adopt a mercantilist trade policy which favors pushing exports and protecting US industries from imports, the US politicians simply do not understand retaliation. What the US can do to other countries, those countries can do back. President Reagan understood the retaliation danger of protectionism and a mercantilist trade policy, but many present day US politicians do not. So all of these countries are following the US lead and implementing a mercantilist trade policy.

Free trade agreements, such as the TPP and the TTIP, which would break this cycle are now all in deep trouble as each country wants to put its industries first and make their country and industries great again. The rise in nationalism results in trade wars in which country after country will fire trade guns against each other. As Jack Ma of Alibaba recently mentioned on CNN, real wars start when trade stops. See http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/02/technology/jack-ma-alibaba-g20/

During this trip, officials at the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) told me that more trade cases will be coming next year against the US. In fact, there are rumors that the Chinese government will soon bring an AD and CVD case targeting $15 billion in US soybean exports to China. This is the number one US export to China. Now that China is bringing more trade cases against the US, these cases will hurt US companies and the jobs that go with them.

On the US side, the election of either Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton in November will mean more US trade cases next year against not only China, but many other countries as well.

On September 22, 2016, MOFCOM in China initiated an escape clause/safeguard action against Sugar from Brazil, Cuba, Guatemala, Australia, South Korea and Thailand alleging tariffs up to 155.90%.

On September 15, 2016, India brought its own antidumping case against Polybutadiene Rubber from South Korea, Russia, South Africa, Iran and Singapore.

Taiwan has brought a Steel antidumping case against China.

More and more cases will be filed in 2017 around the World and many will target the United States, China, and numerous other countries. Compromise is the best way to settle trade disputes, but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to settle US antidumping and other trade cases. What is “fair” trade for the United States is “fair” trade for every other country. Many countries want to make their industries Great again.

TPP IN THE LAME DUCK KEEPS ON TICKING

As mentioned in my last blog post, I believe that if Hilary Clinton is elected, President Obama will push for the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) to come up for a vote during the Lame Duck Session. Many Congressional leaders appeared to oppose tbringing up TPP in the Lame Duck. But with Hilary Clinton’s resurgence in the Polls after the first debate, there is more talk about the TPP coming up in the Lame Duck, the period after the Presidential election and before the end of the year, as President Obama pushes hard for passage of the legislation.

Governor Kasich made clear that he feels “it’s his “responsibility and duty as a leader” — no matter the political cost — to help President Barack Obama push the Trans-Pacific Partnership through Congress.

Kasich stated that

“I have never been an ideological supporter of free trade. The ideologues used to come to me and be frustrated with me. But when you look at these agreements in a real sense – and this one is much different than even NAFTA.”

Kasich added that when Russian and Chinese leaders oppose the TPP, that is one reason to vote for the TPP, “We have to do this.”

Kasich further stated,

“This is the first time the candidates in both major political parties say they are opposed to free trade. It’s astounding to me. I welcome the fact that people will criticize me for putting my country ahead of my party.”

The interview came after Kasich met with President Obama in the Oval Office with former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former George W. Bush administration Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and others for a meeting on the 12-nation Pacific Rim deal.

Kasich further stated:

“This is an opportunity for the Congress to carry out its responsibility. Frankly, if I have to come down here and spend some time lobbying my Republican colleagues, I’m more than glad to do that.

There’s definitely some people I can call and talk to. This is a big deal. I mean, if we were to just walk away with this — with both candidates saying they don’t want this — we turn our backs on Asia.

He also played down the political potency of Trump’s anti-trade position in manufacturing-heavy Ohio, saying it’s not why Trump might win the state.

On September 26, 2016, Robert Samuelson, a well-known economist, published an article entitled “Will TPP Rise from the Dead”, stating:

With Obama’s term ending and his already-modest influence eroding by the day, TPP seems dead. But it may still be in intensive care.

In a speech to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington think tank, Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee whose jurisdiction includes trade agreements, said that the TPP could still be ratified in the lame-duck session after the election and before a new Congress takes office.

Samuelson went on to state that Brady gave two major reasons to approve the TPP.

First, geopolitical: The TPP would enhance US influence in the Pacific region and offset China’s growing economic and political power. TPP would give the United States a major role in regulating global commerce in the 21s century. The trade agreement codifies rules on “intellectual property” (patents, copyrights), data flows and state-owned firms

Ratification would be a strong signal to Asia that the United States intends to remain a Pacific power.

“The second reason is economic: Asia remains a fast-growing region. TPP would eliminate most tariffs among the 12 member countries, aiding American exporters in these markets. The advantage may be particularly important in services (tourism, consulting, finance and engineering), where U.S. firms are especially strong. In 2015, the United States had a $762 billion deficit in goods trade (machinery, steel, medical equipment) and a $262 billion surplus in services trade, leaving an overall deficit of $500 billion. According to the Peterson Institute, the 12 countries in the TPP accounted for about 36% of the world economy and 24% of global trade in 2014.”

Samuelson goes on to quote Brady on why he does not dismiss TPP’s prospects as bleak, “People change once they get into office.”

Samuelson then states:

Translation: The campaign’s anti-trade and anti-globalization rhetoric might recede before the realities of governing. Although Brady didn’t say so, one implication is that a victorious Hillary Clinton might put up only token opposition to TPP, both because the case for approval is strong and because she might feel obligated to Obama for his political support.

But Brady went on to state that getting a deal would be difficult. With many Democrats adamantly opposed to TPP, President Obama would need to rely on Republicans to approve the agreement. But if President Obama cannot round up enough Democratic votes to ensure victory, Republicans will not go out on a political limb and bring the agreement up during the Lame Duck.

“We are running out of time,” Brady told the Peterson audience. As Samuelson stated, “The TPP may yet wind up in the political morgue.”

TRADE

CHINA IMPORTS: KNOW YOUR RISKS

By Adams Lee, Harris Moure International Trade Group

Every year U.S. producers file 10-15 petitions asking the U.S. government to investigate whether certain products imported into the US are sold at unfair prices (antidumping or AD) or are unfairly subsidized (countervailing duty or CVD). Many of the AD/CVD cases target products imported from China. Odds are good that at least two new AD/CVD petitions will be filed by Halloween and as many as five by year end.

Our clients often ask our international trade lawyers how they can determine the likelihood of a AD/CVD petition that could adversely affect their ability to compete in the US market. Each AD/CVD petition is unique to the product and industry it covers, but most AD/CVD investigations fall within a handful of categories. Understanding what has led to the filing of previous AD/CVD petitions can help you as a producer, exporter, or importer, recognize if and when to expect a new AD/CVD petition that could directly affect you. The following are some of the indicators you should be checking to determine whether your imported into the USA product will be next.

The Regulars. Certain domestic industries have been frequent filers of AD/CVD actions. Companies in these industries are veterans of AD/CVD actions; they don’t ask if a new petition will be filed, only when it will be filed.

Steel of all types (carbon steel, stainless steel, flat products, pipe, rebar, wire rod, wire, etc.) from all over the world. The latest wave of steel AD/CVD investigations are being completed with high AD/CVD margins in most cases.

Softwood Lumber from Canada. The latest round of the US-Canada Lumber wars is set to begin as new AD/CVD petitions are likely to be filed in October 2016. Filing a new AD/CVD petition may be necessary to push US-Canada negotiations to a meaningful level.

The Big Box Effect. When Walmart, Lowes, or Target switch their sourcing of a product from a domestic manufacturer to a foreign (read Chinese) one, it is quite common for the jilted domestic supplier to file an AD/CVD petition in an effort to save their business. Boltless steel shelving units, wood flooring, ironing tables, and candles are all examples of this, and all involving products from China.

US Products Squeezed by Imports. It is not uncommon for an AD/CVD petition to be filed by a US producer that makes a higher quality product but is starting to lose out to foreign producers with lower quality but cheaper products. Frozen shrimp from multiple countries, garlic from China, and wooden bedroom furniture from China are some examples of this.

Pressure from Downstream Customers. Many AD/CVD petitions involve products that are material inputs used to make a downstream finished product. Petitions can be triggered by larger downstream producers switching to, or just threatening to switch to imports to pressure smaller upstream suppliers to lower prices. Many chemical products from China, tire products from China and other countries, kitchen racks from China are examples of this.

AD/CVD Actions on Upstream Products. Sometimes AD/CVD actions filed by other domestic industries trickle down and harm downstream domestic industries. For example, US wire rod producers filed AD/CVD petitions that resulted in AD/CVD duties against imported wire rod. But these wire rod duties ended up hurting US wire producers, who in turn filed their own AD/CVD duties against imported wire.

Dying Dinosaurs/Last Survivors. Some AD/CVD petitions are filed by the remaining members of a nearly extinct domestic industry dealing with decreasing demand and increased import pressure. Sometimes the AD/CVD actions allow the surviving US producers to stay in the US market protected from import competition. Examples of this are wooden bedroom furniture, magnesium and innersprings from China.

Other Countries’ AD/CVD actions. The US is not the only country that acts to protect its domestic industries from unfair foreign trade. AD/CVD actions filed in Canada, India, the EU, Brazil, and even China are warning signs of industries facing tight competitive pressure. Imports blocked from one market are often diverted to other available markets. A prime example of this are products from China which first had AD/CVD filed in the EU before the US took action.

All of the above scenarios are good indicators of an imminent filing of a new United States’ AD/CVD petition, so if you are seeing these market conditions in your industry, an AD/CVD petition is probably in your near future.

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO WHEN THE CUSTOMS ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY BOGEYMAN IS COMING AFTER YOUR IMPORTED CHINA PRODUCTS

By Adams Lee, Harris Moure International Trade Group

In China Imports Know Your Risks (above), I wrote about how companies can recognize impending antidumping (AD) or countervailing duty (CVD) petitions. In this post I address what you as an importer, exporter or foreign producer should do if you see an AD/CVD storm looming.

The first thing you should do is determine whether the AD/CVD petition will directly hit your primary operations. The second thing you should do is figure out how best to defend yourself interests if the AD/CVD petition is headed directly your way. The third thing you should do if you do get hit by AD/CVD duties is to figure out damage control going forward.

New AD/CVD Petition – Are my products affected? AD/CVD petitions include a proposed scope definition that identifies the products covered. AD/CVD scope definitions can be complicated and unclear. They may be broader or narrower than the Customs tariff classifications normally used to identify such imports. Even if you think your products are outside the scope of the petition, U.S. Customs may disagree. U.S. Customs commonly demands that you first pay an AD/CVD deposit, assuming that your products are within the scope of the AD/CVD petition, and then Customs will return your deposit only if you get a Department of Commerce (DOC) ruling that your products are actually outside the scope. For example, with aluminum extrusions from China, the DOC has received around a hundred scope ruling requests to clarify whether certain products are included or excluded from the scope of that order.

Once you know the scope definition, you can evaluate the degree to which the AD/CVD action could impact your business. Sometimes you and your customer can find alternatives to replace the subject AD/CVD products with either non-subject products or by your sourcing from non-subject countries. If you have options to switch away from the products covered by the AD/CVD action, it may not be necessary to participate in the AD/CVD investigation.

AD/CVD investigations – How to defend? If your product is squarely within the scope of the AD/CVD petition and the U.S. market is worth fighting for, you should determine the best way to prepare for the AD/CVD investigation. If you have enough time before a petition is filed, you theoretically can try to adjust your sales to remedy whatever is causing the dumped or subsidized sales, most commonly by raising your prices for certain products or customers or by modifying your production operations by lowering or reallocating costs. Unfortunately, most companies are not proactive about planning to avoid AD/CVD actions and instead react only after a petition is filed. We find this especially true of our clients that import from China, as opposed to Europe.

Once an AD/CVD investigation is initiated, foreign producers and exporters and US importers should try to defend their interests before the two agencies responsible for making AD/CVD determinations: The International Trade Commission (ITC) determines whether a domestic industry is injured or threatened with injury by reason of the subject imports and the Department of Commerce (DOC) determines how much the subject imports are dumped or subsidized.

In ITC investigations, the best defenses are presented when the foreign producers, US importers, and US purchasers can organize and explain why the subject imports should not be blamed for any decline in the domestic industry’s performance. Because the ITC examines a broad range of data regarding the US market for the subject product, a comprehensive explanation of relevant market conditions is necessary to a winning argument.

In DOC investigations, the foreign producer and exporters are the primary respondents to the DOC’s questionnaires. These companies must provide extensive corporate structure, sales and cost data, often through multiple rounds of questionnaires. The DOC uses the submitted data to calculate AD/CVD margins. Unaffiliated US importers usually do not need to submit data in DOC investigations and reviews, but they often will closely monitor the DOC’s proceedings because they will ultimately be responsible for paying the AD/CVD duties. See Sourcing Product From China: You Should Know About Importer of Record Liability.

The key to any AD/CVD defense is participating fully in both the DOC’s and the ITC’s investigations. If you don’t participate, you have no chance of winning. If a party does not respond on time or with complete responses, the DOC and the ITC can apply the adverse facts available that inevitably lead to higher AD/CVD margins. US importers should at least actively monitor DOC’s proceedings because their final AD/CVD liability often depends on how well the Chinese producers and exporters are able to respond to DOC’s questionnaires. It is not uncommon for the Chinese producer or exporter to mount a weak or no defense, leaving the U.S. importer essentially “holding the bag.” There are many things you can and should do to try to prevent this from happening to you.

How to Plan for Life with AD/CVD. The overwhelming majority of AD/CVD petitions lead to orders for imposing AD/CVD duties. But depending on the scope definition of the AD/CVD order, it may be possible for you to maintain your business operations by identifying alternative out-of-scope products or by switching your product sourcing to a non-subject country. But in switching sourcing, US importers should be careful to avoid actions that could be considered schemes designed primarily to evade AD/CVD duties, as the DOC can extend orders through circumvention investigations. Customs too can conduct its own investigation of duty evasion allegations.

Also, because the United States uses a retrospective AD/CVD system, foreign suppliers and US importers have the opportunity each year to try to lower their dumping margin. Since AD/CVD duties are “remedial”, foreign producers and U.S. importers have ample opportunity to adjust their production and sales operations so that they can sell “fairly” to the U.S. market, as defined by the U.S. trade laws and with proper planning and disciplined execution, companies can sometimes make even minor adjustments to reduce or eliminate their AD/CVD duty liability.

Bottom Line: You are not without defenses when the AD/CVD bogeyman appears to be heading for you. There are things you can do both to stop it from attacking your business and things you can do to restore your business once attacked.

Editor’s Note: This post focuses on products exported from China to the United States, but its advice applies with equal force to products exported from any other country to the United States and with nearly equal force to products exported from any other country to any other country that also has AD/CVD sanctions.

CAFC MAGNESIUM METAL DECISION

On October 6, 2016, in the attached decision, cafc-magnesium, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commerce Department’s decision that replacement of stainless steel retorts used to produce magnesium metal was an overhead expense and not a direct cost in the Magnesium Metal from China antidumping case.

STEEL TRADE CASES

CARBON AND ALLOY STEEL CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE FROM CHINA AND KOREA

On September 7, 2016, in the attached fact sheet, clt-plate-cvd-prelim-fs-090716, Commerce issued an affirmative preliminary CVD determination in the initial investigation of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from China and a negative preliminary determination in the CVD investigation of imports from Korea.

China CVD rate best on all facts available is 210.50% and Korea’s CVD rate is 0.

CARBON AND ALLOY STEEL CUT-TO-LENGTH PLATE FROM BRAZIL, SOUTH AFRICA AND TURKEY

On September 16, 2016, in the attached fact sheet, factsheet-multiple-ctl-plate-ad-prelim-091616, Commerce announced its affirmative preliminary determinations in the AD investigations of imports of certain carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey.

On September 12, 2016, in the attached fact sheet, factsheet-prc-stainless-steel-sheet-strip-ad-prelim-091216, Commerce announced its affirmative preliminary determination in the AD investigation of imports of stainless steel sheet and strip from China. The antidumping rates range from 63.86% to 76.64%.

TRADE CASES AGAINST EUROPE

EUROPEAN TARGETS IN ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASES AND WHAT CAN BE DONE TO GET BACK IN THE US MARKET AGAIN

Recently, there have been several articles about the sharp rise in AD and CVD/trade remedy cases in the last year. By the second half of 2016, the US Government has reported that twice as many AD and CVD cases have been initiated in 2015-2016 as in 2009.

China is not the only target. AD cases have been recently filed against a number of European countries, including Carbon and Alloy Steel Plate from Austria, Belgium, Germany, and Italy; Steel Flanges from Italy and Spain; and Rubber from Poland.

In addition, there are outstanding AD and CVD orders against Germany on brass sheet and strip, seamless pipe, sodium nitrite and non-oriented electrical steel. In addition to Germany, other EU Countries have been hit on various steel products, including a number of stainless steel products, from Spain, Belgium and Italy; brass sheet and strip from France and Italy, isocyanurates from Spain, pasta from Italy, paper from Portugal and Uranium from France. The oldest US AD order in place today is pressure sensitive plastic tape from Italy, which was issued in 1977.

Under US law Commerce determines whether dumping is taking place. Dumping is defined as selling imported goods at less than fair value or less than normal value, which in general terms means lower than prices in the home/foreign market or below the fully allocated cost of production. Antidumping duties are levied to remedy the unfair act by raising the US price so that the products are fairly traded.

Commerce also imposes Countervailing Duties to offset any foreign subsidies provided by foreign governments so as to raise the price of the subsidized imports.

AD and CVD duties can only be imposed if there is injury to the US industry, which is determined by the ITC. But in determining injury, the law directs the ITC to cumulate, that is add together all the imports of the same product from the various foreign countries.

The real question many companies may have is how can AD and CVD rates be reduced so that the European company can start exporting to the US again. US AD and CVD laws are considered remedial, not punitive statutes. Thus, every year in the month in which the AD or CVD order was issued, Commerce gives the parties, including the domestic producers, foreign producers and US importers, the right to request a review investigation based on sales of imports that entered the US in the preceding year.

Thus, the AD order on electrical steel from Germany was issued in December 2014. In December 2016, the German producer can request a review investigation of the electrical steel that entered, was actually imported into, the US during the period December 1, 2015 to November 31, 2016.

EU companies may ask that it is too difficult to export a 17 metric ton container of covered product to the US, requesting a nonaffiliated importer to put up an AD of 50 to over 100%, which can require a payment of $1 million USD or more. In contrast to European law, however, the US AD and CVD law is retrospective. Thus the importer posts a cash deposit when it imports products under an AD or CVD order, and the importer will get back the difference plus interest at the end of the review investigation.

More importantly, through a series of cases, Commerce has let foreign producers export smaller quantities of the product to use as a test sale in a review investigation if all other aspects of the sale are normal. Thus in a chemical case, we had the exporter put a metric ton of the chemical in question in a container with other products and that metric ton served as the test sale to establish the new AD rate.

EU Companies may also ask how we can make sure that we are not dumping. The answer is dump proofing and computer programs. In contrast to China, EU companies are considered market economy companies and, therefore, Commerce must use actual prices and costs in the European country to determine whether it is dumping or not. Computer programs can be used to reduce the dumping margin significantly by modeling US prices and EU home market prices to eliminate or significantly reduce antidumping rates.

How successful can companies be in reviews? In one EU Steel case, we dropped the dumping rate from over 17% in the initial investigation to 0% in the review investigation. In a chemical from China case, we dropped a dumping rate of over 200% to 0%, allowing the Chinese company to become the exclusive exporter of the product for decades per order of the US government.

Playing the AD and CVD game in review investigations can significantly reduce AD and CVD rates and get the EU company back in the US market again

TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS/COMPANIES

David Holbert, who heads the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (“NWTAAC”), is writing a series of posts on the NWTAAC website on how Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies helps injured companies injured by imports. This is the first post.

Imports are Like a Thousand Flash Floods Injuring US Companies That Are Not Competitive

The issue of trade competition and lost jobs is well discussed in the media. I work with small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who are negatively affected by trade competition, what is often called “trade impact” in policy lingo. It’s a big issue. According to the U.S Trade Representative, the United States’ 30 million SMEs account for nearly two-thirds of net new private sector jobs in recent decades.

For large companies or from a macro-economic perspective, import competition may seem like a rising tide – one that can be anticipated, prepared for or proactively mitigated. For small and medium-sized businesses, not equipped with diverse product lines, resources or change acumen, import competition feels more like a flash flood.

What is it like for those companies? When trade impact hits, sales drop off, often suddenly.

Contract manufacturers build to specification for customers, often larger companies. For this group, trade impact could mean the loss of a major customer moving operations to a foreign country (and finding parts suppliers there), or simply an importer arriving on the scene with lower cost products.

For a consumer products company, trade impact will probably first arrive with falling sales to the big retail chains since they are the most sensitive to supplier prices.

For a commodity producer things are a little more predictable. There may be a change in currency valuation or the rise of a new industry in a foreign country. Regardless, these highly price sensitive markets will suddenly have a lower price option.

Commercial products producers will usually have more time. When imports arrive they will sell to generally more informed customers who usually value factors other than price. But the fall will come, just more slowly.

Sales could fall off for many reasons. How do you know its trade related? You ask or you ask around. It shouldn’t take long to find out.

Imports arrive product by product. Companies move offshore factory by factory. A domestic company makes that product, is part of the supply chain needed to make the product or is part of that commodity industry. When the imports arrive (or the factory moves), that one company or set of suppliers or community of producers is directly in the way. All of this happens in what can seem to be a relatively normal looking manufacturing neighborhood. Across the street there might be a company making another product that is experiencing no trade competition. Next door a third company might have gone through trade impact years ago and has adjusted. For small and medium sized companies, trade impact can be surprisingly direct and specific.

Here are some examples of what I’m talking about.

A commercial products company makes a specialized tool. A couple of other U.S. and European companies make similar products with some parity between price and features. One year they are at the big industry trade show and see a product, similar to theirs (and the others), but priced about 40% lower. Three months later sales started slipping.

A contract manufacturer that machines metal parts had gravitated away from stainless steel to titanium and built for several competitors in the same industry. Foreign producers had mastered stainless steel over the last decade. But as of a recent year, those producers finally mastered titanium as well. One by one, the manufacturer’s customers started buying imports. Once one did, it had a cost advantage, so the others had to go along also.

A nut grower was maintaining a slim profit. Then, a certain country decided to incentivize its nut growers to achieve more efficiency and export capability. It took a while, but when the imported nuts started arriving, they were at a price point below break-even for the domestic producer.

A safety products producer sold through a variety of retailers. One year, seemingly out of the blue, the big box stores stopped ordering. It didn’t take long to figure out why. A similar imported product was on the shelves at about half the price.

In future posts I’ll cover the steps to recovery. They are many effective tools in the economic recovery toolbox. In many cases, companies that employed these resources are now unrecognizable through increased scale and product changes. Interestingly, a surprising number become significant exporters.

My role at the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center is to help small and medium-sized companies that are negatively impacted by trade competition through grants of up to $75,000. Our non-profit organization administers a federal program serving companies in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska. You can learn more about us at NWTAAC.org.

CUSTOMS LAW

IMPORTING GOODS FROM CHINA: THE RISKS ARE RISING

By Adams Lee, Harris Moure International Trade Group

Last month I wrote about how importers from China need to be on their guard since U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has implemented new regulations to investigate allegations of antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) evasion. See Importing From China: One More (New) Thing You Need To Know.

It didn’t take long, as U.S. Customs has already begun its first wave of investigations: Wheatland Tube, a US steel pipe producer, on September 14, 2016 announced it had filed with CBP an allegation of duty evasion on imports of Chinese circular welded steel pipe.

CBP has published a timeline for conducting its investigations and a process diagram (EAPA Investigation Timeline) and this newly filed allegation will be a test case to see how CBP will conduct its new duty evasion investigations. Hopefully, CBP will soon address many of the questions raised by the new regulations. How will parties be allowed to participate? What information from the investigation will be made public? How will CBP define “reasonable suspicion” of duty evasion?

This steel pipe investigation is likely to be the first of many CBP duty evasion investigations that are to come, many (probably most) of which will target Chinese products subject to AD/CVD duties. For how to figure out the risk quotient for the products you import from China, check out China Imports: Know Your Risks.

The new antidumping and countervailing duty regulations will unquestionably require an increased number of importers and foreign manufacturers to formally respond to CBP’s questions in response to allegations. Given the strong political pressure by domestic U.S. industries calling for tougher enforcement of US trade laws (not to mention the rising opposition to free trade among the American populace), Chinese producers and exporters and US importers should be prepared for increased CBP activity. CBP is likely looking to punish someone hard to set an example of their improved enforcement.

Getting Your China Products Through U.S. Customs: The101

By Emily Lawson, Harris Moure International Trade Group

If you are importing products from China you need to do your homework to make sure your incoming shipments into the United States comply with U.S. Customs laws and regulations. Compliance with U.S. Customs laws and regulationsiscriticalinavoidingyourshipmentsbeingdetainedorseized,and/or penalties assessed.Commonissues importers of productsfromChina typicallyface include thefollowing:

•Failingtomarktheproductwiththecountryoforiginofmanufacture. Generally goods of foreign origin for import into the U.S. or immediate containers of the goods must be marked legibly and in a conspicuous locationwiththecountry oforigininEnglish.Failuretodosoaccurately can resultincivilandevenpossibly criminalpenalties.

•Failing to provide complete commercial invoices. Customs regulations providethatspecificdatamustbeincludedonthecommercialinvoicefor U.S.Customspurposes,includingadetaileddescriptionofthemerchandise, andcorrectvalueinformation.Omissionofthisinformationmay resultin improper declaration to U.S. Customs at the time of import and expose you to penalties.

•FailingtomeetotherU.S.Governmentagencyrequirements.Goods imported for sale in the U.S. must satisfy the same legal requirements as those goods manufactured in the United States. U.S. Customs enforces the laws of other agencies in the U.S., including, the Food and Drug Administration,theConsumerProductSafety Commission(CPSC),andthe Environmental Protection Agency,inadditionto others. Therefore, iftoys, forexample,areexportedtotheU.S.,detailedCPSCrequirements,including for testing, must be met prior toexport.

•Distribution of many trademarked and copyrighted items. Items which are trademarkedandcopyrightedarerestrictedby contractualagreementsthat giveexclusiverightstospecificcompaniestodistributetheproductinthe U.S.Importsofimproperly trademarkedorcopyrighteditemscanbeseized attheU.S.borderandcansubjectyouastheimportertopenalties.

Takingthetimetoidentify therequiredU.S.Customslawsandregulationsfor the products to be shipped to the U.S. from China will help you maintain seamlessdelivery of yourmerchandisetoU.S.customersandavoidciviland criminal penalty exposure.

On October 5, 2916, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the attached decision in United States ex rel Customs Fraud Investigations, LLC. v. Vitaulic Company, us-vs-vitaulic, reversed the Federal District Court and held that a failure to label imported goods with the proper country of origin is actionable under the False Claim Act (“FCA”). Vitaulic had imported millions of pounds of steel pipe with the wrong country of origin.

In holding that this is an actionable claim under the FCA, the Court stated:

These actions, according to CFI, give rise to the present qui tam action under the so-called “reverse false claims” provision in the False Claims Act (FCA). Typically, a claim under the FCA alleges that a person or company submitted a bill to the government for work that was not performed or was performed improperly, resulting in an undeserved payment flowing to that person or company. The FCA was enacted as a reaction to rampant fraud and price gouging by merchants supplying the Union army during the Civil War. In this case, by contrast, the allegation is not that Victaulic is obtaining monies from the government to which it is not entitled, but rather that it is retaining money it should have paid the government in the form of marking duties. Wrongful retention cases such as these are known as “reverse false claims” actions.

The Court went on to state:

Of particular importance here, the Senate Report discussed “customs duties for mismarking country of origin,” and how such duties would be covered by the amended reverse false claims Provision. . . .

The plain text of the FCA’s reverse claims provision is clear: any individual who “knowingly conceals or knowingly and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government” may be subject to liability. As alleged by CFI in the amended complaint, Victaulic declined to notify the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of its pipe fittings’ non-conforming status. This failure to notify resulted in the pipe fittings being released into the stream of commerce in the United States and, consequently, marking duties being owed and not paid.

From a policy perspective, the possibility of reverse false claims liability in such circumstances makes sense in the context of the larger import/export regulatory scheme created by Congress. Because of the government’s inability to inspect every shipment entering the United States, an importer may have an incentive to decline to mention that its goods are mismarked on the assumption that the mismarking will not be discovered. In doing so, an importer avoids its obligation under 19 U.S.C. § 1484 to provide the government with such information as is necessary to enable the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to determine whether the merchandise may be released from government custody or whether it must be properly marked, re-exported or destroyed.

HONEY AND FURNITURE

FURNITURE

On September 30, 2016, Ecologic Industries LLC and OMNI SCM LLC controlled by a Daniel Scott Goldman agreed to pay $1.525 million to settle a civil False Claims Act suit alleging it conspired to make false statements to avoid paying duties on wooden furniture imported from China to avoid the antidumping duties on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China. The companies sell furniture for student housing.

The case was filed by a whistleblower Matthew Bissanti, who is the former president and director of OMNI. The Justice Department reported that Bissanti will receive $228,750 as his share of the settlement.

HONEY

On Aug 12, 2016, in the attached notice, to-bee-or-not-to-bee_-cbp-and-partners-seized-132-drums-of-hone, Customs and Border Protection announced seizure of 42 tons of illegally imported Chinese honey. The honey was contained in 132 fifty-five gallon drums that were falsely declared as originating from Taiwan to evade antidumping duties applicable to Chinese honey. The evaded antidumping duties on this shipment of Chinese honey would be nearly $180,299.

ANTITRUST LAW

VITAMIN C ANTITRUST CASE—THE REAL ANTIDUMPING BACK STORY

On September 20, 2016, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals handed down its attached decision in the Vitamin C Antitrust case against the Chinese companies, In Re: Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, vitamin-c-13-4791_opn-2d-cir-sept-20-2016. In its decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the Federal District Court’s decision that the Chinese Vitamin C companies had fixed prices in violation of the US antitrust because Chinese government action, in effect, insulated the Chinese companies from US antitrust liability.

The Court of Appeals made the correct decision because as indicated below, I have personal knowledge as to the reason the Chinese government set the Vitamin C export price scheme in place to raise Chinese export prices—to deter US and other Antidumping cases.

As the Court of Appeals stated in its opinion:

the Chinese Government filed a formal statement in the district court asserting that Chinese law required Defendants to set prices and reduce quantities of vitamin C sold abroad, and because Defendants could not simultaneously comply with Chinese law and U.S. antitrust law . . .

The Court of Appeals then reversed the District Court “on international comity grounds” and ordered the District Court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

In effect, the Second Circuit held that based on comity grounds, that is, respect for Chinese law as evidenced by a formal statement and submission of the Chinese government that the Chinese government lawfully set up a scheme to raise Vitamin C prices, the Federal District Court should have dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court should have deferred to the Chinese government and exempted the Chinese companies from the application of the US antitrust law based on the state action defense. It should be noted that the Federal Government and State Governments through state action can insulate US domestic companies from the application of the US antitrust law.

The Court of Appeals specifically determined in the decision that:

The official statements of the Ministry should be credited and accorded deference. . . .The 2002 Notice, inter alia, demonstrates that from 2002 to 2005, the relevant time period alleged in the complaint, Chinese law required Defendants to participate in the PVC regime in order to export vitamin C. This regulatory regime allowed vitamin C manufacturers the export only vitamin C subject to contracts that complied with the “industry‐wide negotiated” price.

Although the 2002 Notice does not specify how the “industry‐wide negotiated” price was set, we defer to the Ministry’s reasonable interpretation that the term means what it suggests—that members of the regulated industry were required to negotiate and agree upon a price. . . ..

In this context, we find it reasonable to view the entire PVC regime as a decentralized means by which the Ministry, through the Chamber, regulated the export of vitamin C by deferring to the manufacturers and adopting their agreed upon price as the minimum export price. In short, by directing vitamin C manufacturers to coordinate export prices and quantities and adopting those standards into the regulatory regime, the Chinese Government required Defendants to violate the Sherman Act. . . .

Because we hold that Defendants could not comply with both U.S. antitrust laws and Chinese law regulating the foreign export of vitamin C, a true conflict exists between the applicable laws of China and those of the United States.

The Court of Appeals went on to state:

Moreover, there is no evidence that Defendants acted with the express purpose or intent to affect U.S. commerce or harm U.S. businesses in particular. Rather, according to the Ministry, the regulations at issue governing Defendants’ conduct were intended to assist China in its transition from a state‐run command economy to a market‐driven economy, and the resulting price‐fixing was intended to ensure China remained a competitive participant in the global vitamin C market and to prevent harm to China’s trade relations. While it was reasonably foreseeable that China’s vitamin C policies would generally have a negative effect on Plaintiffs as participants in the international market for vitamin C, as noted above, there is no evidence that Defendants’ antitrust activities were specifically directed at Plaintiffs or other U.S. companies.

The purpose of the Chinese export scheme was not to damage US customers or businesses. In fact, just the opposite was true. The Chinese government wanted to keep exports flowing.

What was the concern of the Chinese government? US and other antidumping cases, which could wipe Chinese exports out of the US market for decades. This was the true number one anticompetitive threat that the Chinese government and companies were facing. Was this a realistic threat? Sure was.

The period that the export price scheme was set in place was 2002-2005. On July 11, 2002, after losing an antidumping case in the mid-90s against Saccharin from China despite very high antidumping rates because of a no injury determination by the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”), PMC, the sole US producer of saccharin, filed a second antidumping case against saccharin from China. The Chinese Chamber of Commerce in charge of the Saccharin case was the Chamber of Commerce for Medicines, the same Chamber in charge of the Vitamin C case.

On July 2, 2003, the Commerce Department issued an antidumping order against all imports of saccharin from China with rates ranging from an individual dumping rate of 249.39% to 329.29% for all other Chinese companies, effectively blocking all Chinese saccharin from China. The Antidumping Order was in effect for 10 years.

Although one company that I represented was after three and a half years able to reduce its dumping rate down to 0%, all other Chinese saccharin was blocked out of the US market for 10 years. Market prices for saccharin in the US soared from a low $1.50 per pound in the investigative period to a price well over $10 a pound.

And US plaintiff companies in the Vitamin C case were complaining about the price rise in Vitamin C exports to the US??!! I am sure the increase was not 10 times.

Since I represented the Chinese saccharin industry in the Saccharin antidumping case, the Chamber of Commerce for Medicine and I were very aware of the devastating effect a US or other antidumping case could have on Chinese companies and exports. After the antidumping order was issued, in the Summer of 2003 the Chamber called me to a meeting with the Chinese Vitamin C producers and the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”} to discuss how to deter US and other antidumping cases. The Chamber and MOFCOM were very worried that intense Chinese price competition would lead to a wave of antidumping cases against the Vitamin C companies.

The Vitamin C companies, the Chamber and MOFCOM asked what can we do if there is a threat of an antidumping case. Since Commerce and all other countries treat China as a nonmarket economy country and refuse to use actual prices and costs in China to determine antidumping cases, the general practice of dump proofing where antidumping consultants use computer programs to eliminate the unfair act, dumping, is not an option for Chinese companies.

The only remedy I could think of was that the Chinese government impose an export price floor. That approach worked in the 90s with another Chamber of Commerce when there was a threat of a US antidumping case against Silicon Carbide from China. The US Silicon Carbide producer in the one company US industry never filed their threatened antidumping case against China because of the export price floor the Chamber with MOFCOM’s consent put in place.

After suggesting that the Chamber set up an export price floor with MOFCOM’s involvement, I went on to state that MOFCOM would have to issue a law, regulation or action to show that the Government mandated the establishment of the system to insulate the Chinese companies from attack under the US antitrust laws.

The Chamber did set up the export price system for Vitamin C exports to stop US and other antidumping cases from being filed against the Chinese companies. No Vitamin C antidumping cases were filed because the export price system was put in place.

As indicated by the Second Circuit, MOFOM did take government action to set up the export price scheme, which, in turn, insulated the Chinese companies from US antitrust liability.

The lesson of the story is that although the purpose of US antitrust law is to protect consumers and competition in the US market, the real threat to US consumers and market competition is the US antidumping law.

CRIMINAL IP/TRADE SECRET CASE

On October 5, 2016, the Justice Department in the attached notice, chinese-national-sentenced-to-prison-for-conspiracy-to-steal-tr, announced the sentencing of Mo Hailong, a/k/a Robert Mo, a Chinese national to three years in Federal prison for a conspiracy to steal trade secrets. Mr. Mo Hailong was the Director of International Business of the Beijing Dabeinong Technology Group Company, commonly referred to as DBN. DBN is a Chinese conglomerate with a corn seed subsidiary company, Kings Nower Seed.

According to the plea agreement, Mo Hailong admitted to participating in a long-term conspiracy to steal trade secrets from DuPont Pioneer and Monsanto. Mo Hailong participated in the theft of inbred corn seeds from fields in Iowa and elsewhere for the purpose of transporting the seeds to DBN in China. The stolen inbred, or parent, seeds were the valuable trade secrets of DuPont Pioneer and Monsanto.

U.S. Attorney Kevin E. VanderSchel stated:

“Mo Hailong stole valuable proprietary information in the form of seed corn from DuPont Pioneer and Monsanto in an effort to transport such trade secrets to China. Theft of trade secrets is a serious federal crime, as it harms victim companies that have invested millions of dollars and years of work toward the development of propriety technology. The theft of agricultural trade secrets, and other intellectual property, poses a grave threat to our national economic security. The Justice Department and federal law enforcement partners are committed to prosecuting those who in engage in conduct such as Mo Hailong.”

SECTION 337 AND IP CASES

NEW 337 CASES

On October 6, 2016, Nite Ize, Inc. filed a major 337 case against Device Holders, many of which come from China. The relevant parts of the ITC notice along with the names of the Chinese respondent companies are below.

STOP IP INFRINGING PRODUCTS FROM CHINA AND OTHER COUNTRIES USING CUSTOMS AND SECTION 337 CASES

With Amazon and Ebay having increased their efforts at bringing in Chinese sellers and with more and more Chinese manufacturers branching out and making their own products, the number of companies contacting our China lawyers here at Harris Moure about problems with counterfeit products and knockoffs has soared. If the problem involves infringing products being imported into the United States, powerful remedies are available to companies with US IP rights if the infringing imports are products coming across the US border.

If the IP holder has a registered trademark or copyright, the individual or company holding the trademark or copyright can go directly to Customs and record the trademark under 19 CFR 133.1 or the copyright under 19 CFR 133.31. See https://iprr.cbp.gov/.

Many years ago a US floor tile company was having massive problems with imports infringing its copyrights on its tile designs. Initially, we looked at a Section 337 case as described below, but the more we dug down into the facts, we discovered that the company simply failed to register its copyrights with US Customs.

Once the trademarks and copyrights are registered, however, it is very important for the company to continually police the situation and educate the various Customs ports in the United States about the registered trademarks and copyrights and the infringing imports coming into the US. Such a campaign can help educate the Customs officers as to what they should be looking out for when it comes to identifying which imports infringe the trademarks and copyrights in question. The US recording industry many years ago had a very successful campaign at US Customs to stop infringing imports.

For those companies with problems from Chinese infringing imports, another alternative is to go to Chinese Customs to stop the export of infringing products from China. The owner of Beanie Babies did this very successfully having Chinese Customs stop the export of the infringing Beanie Babies out of China.

One of the most powerful remedies is a Section 337 case, which can block infringing products, regardless of their origin, from entering the U.S. A Section 337 action (the name comes from the implementing statute, 19 U.S.C. 1337) is available against imported goods that infringe a copyright, trademark, patent, or trade secret. But because other actions are usually readily available to owners of registered trademarks and copyrights, Section 337 actions are particularly effective for owners of patents, unregistered trademarks, and trade secrets. Although generally limited to IP rights, in the ongoing Section 337 steel case, US Steel has been attempting to expand the definition of unfair acts to include hacking into computer systems and antitrust violations.

The starting point is a section 337 investigation at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”). If the ITC finds certain imports infringe a specific intellectual property right, it can issue an exclusion order and U.S. Customs will then keep out allthe infringing imports at the border.

Section 337 is a hybrid IP and trade statute, which requires a showing of injury to a US industry. The injury requirement is very low and can nearly always be met–a few lost sales will suffice to show injury. The US industry requirement can be a sticking point. The US industry is usually the one company that holds the intellectual property right in question. If the IP right is a registered trademark, copyright or patent, the US industry requirement has been expanded to not only include significant US investment in plant and equipment, labor or capital to substantial investment in the exploitation of the IP right, including engineering, research and development or licensing. Recently, however, the ITC has raised the US industry requirement to make it harder for patent “trolls” or Non Practicing Entities to bring 337 cases.

Section 337 cases, however, are directed at truly unfair acts. Patents and Copyrights are protected by the US Constitution so in contrast to antidumping and countervailing duty cases, respondents in these cases get more due process protection. The Administrative Procedures Act is applied to Section 337 cases with a full trial before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), extended full discovery, a long trial type hearing, but on a very expedited time frame.

Section 337 actions, in fact, are the bullet train of IP litigation, fast, intense litigation in front of an ALJ. The typical section 337 case takes only 12-15 months. Once a 337 petition is filed, the ITC has 30 days to determine whether or not to institute the case. After institution, the ITC will serve the complaint and notice of investigation on the respondents. Foreign respondents have 30 days to respond to the complaint; US respondents have only 20 days. If the importers or foreign respondents do not respond to the complaint, the ITC can find the companies in default and issue an exclusion order.

The ITC’s jurisdiction in 337 cases is “in rem,” which means it is over the product being imported into the US. This makes sense: the ITC has no power over the foreign companies themselves, but it does have power over the imports. What this means in everyday terms is that unlike most regular litigation, a Section 337 case can be effectively won against a Chinese company that 1) is impossible to serve, 2) fails to show up at the hearing, and 3) is impossible to collect any money from.

The remedy in section 337 cases is an exclusion order excluding the respondent’s infringing products from entering the United States. In special situations, however, where it is very easy to manufacture a product, the ITC can issue a general exclusion order against the World. In the Rubik’s Cube puzzle case, which was my case at the ITC, Ideal (the claimant) named over 400 Taiwan companies as respondents infringing its common law trademark. The ITC issued a General Exclusion Order in 1983 and it is still in force today, blocking Rubik’s Cube not made by Ideal from entering the United States. In addition to exclusion orders, the ITC can issue cease and desist orders prohibiting US importers from selling products in inventory that infringe the IP rights in question

Section 337 cases can also be privately settled, but the settlement agreement is subject to ITC review. We frequently work with our respondent clients to settle 337 cases early to minimize their legal fees. In the early 1990s, RCA filed a section 337 case against TVs from China. The Chinese companies all quickly settled the case by signing a license agreement with RCA.

Respondents caught in section 337 cases often can modify their designs to avoid the IP right in question. John Deere brought a famous 337 case aimed at Chinese companies that painted their tractors green and yellow infringing John Deere’s trademark. Most of the Chinese respondents settled the case and painted their tractors different colors, such as blue and red.

Bottom Line: Section 337 cases are intense litigation before the ITC, and should be considered by U.S. companies as a tool for fighting against infringing products entering the United States. On the flip side, US importers and foreign respondents named in these cases should take them very seriously and respond quickly because exclusion orders can stay in place for years.

If you have any questions about these cases or about US trade policy, TPP, the antidumping or countervailing duty law, trade adjustment assistance, customs, False Claims Act or 337 IP/patent law in general, please feel free to contact me.

In mid-August, Adams Lee, a well- known Trade and Customs lawyer from White & Case in Washington DC, has joined us here at Harris Moure in Seattle. Adams has handled well over 100 antidumping and countervailing duty cases. Attached is Adams’ bio, adams-lee-resume-aug-16, and his article is below on the new Customs Regulations against Evasion of US Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders.

Adams and I will both be in China from Sept 11th to October 1st in Beijing, Shanghai and Nanjing. If anyone would like to talk to us about these issues, please feel free to contact me at my e-mail, bill@harrismoure.com.

TRADE IS A TWO WAY STREET

“PROTECTIONISM BECOMES DESTRUCTIONISM; IT COSTS JOBS”

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, JUNE 28, 1986

US CHINA TRADE WAR SEPTEMBER 8, 2016

Dear Friends,

Trade continues to be at the center of the Presidential primary with a possible passage of the Trans Pacific Partnership during the Lame Duck Session. This blog post contains the sixth, and maybe the most important, article on Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies of a several part series on how weak free trade arguments have led to the sharp rise of protectionism of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders and the now possible demise of the Trans Pacific Partner (“TPP”).

The first article outlined the problem and why this is such a sharp attack on the TPP and some of the visceral arguments against free trade. The second article explored in depth the protectionist arguments and the reason for the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. The third article explored the weak and strong arguments against protectionism. The fourth article discussed one of the most important arguments for the TPP—National Security. The fifth article discussed why the Commerce Department’s and the US International Trade Commission’s (ITC) policy in antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) cases has led to a substantial increase in protectionism and national malaise of international trade victimhood.

The sixth article provides an answer with the only trade program that works and saves the companies and the jobs that go with them—The Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies program along with MEP, another US manufacturing program. The Article will describe the attempts by both Congress and the Obama Administration to kill the program, which may, in fact, have resulted in the sharp rise in protectionism in the US.

To pass the TPP, Congress must also provide assistance to make US companies competitive in the new free trade market created by the TPP. Congress must restore the trade safety net so that Congress can again vote for free trade agreements, and the United States can return to its leadership in the Free Trade area. The Congress has to fix the trade situation now before the US and the World return to the Smoot Hawley protectionism of the 1930s and the rise of nationalism, which can lead to military conflict.

In addition, set forth below are articles on a possible new antidumping case on Aluminum Foil from China and the rise of AD and CVD cases, the $2 billion in missing AD and CVD duties, the new Customs regulations to stop Transshipment in AD and CVD cases, the upcoming deadlines in the Solar Cells case in both English and Chinese, recent decisions in Steel cases, antidumping and countervailing duty reviews in September against Chinese companies, and finally an article about how to stop imports that infringe US intellectual property rights, either using US Customs law or Section 337 at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”).

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me at my new e-mail address bill@harrismoure.com.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

TRADE PROTECTIONISM IS STILL A VERY BIG TOPIC OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION; THE TPP PROBABLY IS NOT COMING UP IN THE LAME DUCK

As mentioned in my last newsletter, I believe that if Hilary Clinton is elected, President Obama will push for the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) to come up for a vote during the Lame Duck Session. The Congress, however, has other ideas.

In early August, U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan stated that he saw no reason to bring up the TPP in the Lame Duck because “we don’t have the votes.” Ryan went on to state:

“As long as we don’t have the votes, I see no point in bringing up an agreement only to defeat it. They have to fix this agreement and renegotiate some pieces of it if they have any hope or chance of passing it. I don’t see how they’ll ever get the votes for it.”

Democratic Senator Ron Wyden stated in late August that he will not take a position on the TPP until Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell brings the TPP up for a vote. But on August 26th, Mitch McConnell stated that passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be the next president’s problem, saying that the Senate will not vote on the treaty this year:

“The current agreement, the Trans-Pacific [Partnership], which has some serious flaws, will not be acted upon this year. It will still be around. It can be massaged, changed, worked on during the next administration.”

With this statement, McConnell appears to have killed passage during the Obama Administration.

But businesses continue to push for the TPP. On Sept 6th, the California Chamber of Commerce urged its Congressional delegation to pass the TPP. In the attached Sept 7th letter, 9-7finaltppletter, the Washington State Council on International Trade also urged its Congressional delegation to pass TPP, stating:

“with 40 percent of Washington jobs dependent upon trade, it is paramount that we prioritize policies and investments that increase our state’s international competitiveness. That is why it is so important that you join us in calling for an immediate vote on the TPP; according to a newly released Washington Council on International Trade-Association of Washington Business study, Washington could have already increased our exports by up to $8.7 billion and directly created 26,000 new jobs had the TPP been implemented in 2015.

While the U.S. has some of the lowest import duties in the world on most goods, our local Washington exporters are faced with thousands of tariffs that artificially inflate the cost of American-made goods. TPP will help eliminate these barriers . . ..

TPP aligns with Washington’s high standards, setting 21st century standards for digital trade, environmental protections, and labor rules . . . . If we want to increase our competitiveness and set American standards for global trade, we must act now with the TPP.

This election season’s rhetoric has been hostile toward trade, but the TPP’s benefits for our state are undeniable. It is imperative that our state steps up to advocate for the family wage jobs and economic opportunities created by trade, and the time to do so is now.”

Despite the Congressional opposition, ever the optimist, President Obama keeps pushing for passage during the Lame Duck. On August 30th, the White House Press Office stated:

“The president is going to make a strong case that we have made progress and there is a path for us to get this done before the president leaves office.”

On September 1, 2016, at a Press Conference in Hangzhou, China for the G20 meeting, President Obama said he is still optimistic about passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Obama argued that the economic benefits of the pact would win out once the “noise” of the election season subsides.

The President said he plans to assure the leaders of the other countries that signed the TPP that the U.S. will eventually approve the deal despite the very vocal opposition from Democratic and Republican lawmakers and Presidential candidates.

President Obama went to state:

“And it’s my intention to get this one done, because, on the merits, it is smart for America to do it. And I have yet to hear a persuasive argument from the left or the right as to why we wouldn’t want to create a trade framework that raises labor standards, raising environmental standards, protects intellectual property, levels the playing field for U.S. businesses, brings down tariffs.”

Obama stated that although other countries, such as Japan, have troubles passing the TPP, the other countries:

“are ready to go. And what I’ll be telling them is that the United States has never had a smooth, uncontroversial path to ratifying trade deals, but they eventually get done”

“And so I intend to be making that argument. I will have to be less persuasive here because most people already understand that. Back home, we’ll have to cut through the noise once election season is over. It’s always a little noisy there.”

As mentioned in the last blog post, one of the strongest arguments for the TPP is National Security. Trade agreements help stop trade wars and military conflict. But despite that very strong point, the impact of free trade on the average manufacturing worker has not been beneficial.

In a recent e-mail blast, the Steel Workers make the point:

“Because of unfair trade, 1,500 of my colleagues at U.S. Steel Granite City Works in Granite City, Illinois are still laid-off. It’s been more than six months since our mill shut down.

Worker unemployment benefits are running out. Food banks are emptying out. People are losing their homes. City services might even shut down.

But there’s finally reason for hope. The Commerce Department recently took action to enforce our trade laws by placing duties on unfairly traded imports from countries like China. That will help ensure steel imports are priced fairly — and allow us to compete . . . .

All told, nearly 19,000 Americans have faced layoffs across the country because of the steel imports crisis.

China is making far more steel than it needs. China knows this is a problem, and repeatedly has pledged to cut down on steel production. But nothing has changed . . . .

China’s steel industry is heavily subsidized by its government, and it also doesn’t need to follow serious labor or environmental rules. But China has to do something with all that steel, so it dumps it into the United States far below market value.”

In a recent Business Week article, Four Myths about Trade, Robert Atkinson, the president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, made the same point stating:

The Washington trade establishment’s second core belief is that trade is an unalloyed good, even if other nations engage in mercantilism. . . . it doesn’t matter if other nations massively subsidize their exporters, require U.S. companies to hand over the keys to their technology in exchange for market access, or engage in other forms of mercantilist behavior. . . .

But China and others are proving that this is folly. In industry after industry, including the advanced innovation-based industries that are America’s future, they are gaming the rules of global trade to hold others back while they leap forward. . ..

It’s a reflection of having lost competitive advantage to other nations in many higher-value-added industries, in part because of foreign mercantilist policies and domestic economic-policy failures.

The Author then goes on to state the US must be tough in fighting mercantilism and “vigilantly enforce trade rules, such as by bringing many more trade-enforcement cases to the WTO, pressuring global aid organizations to cut funding to mercantilist nations, limiting the ability of companies in mercantilist nations to buy U.S. firms, and more.”

But this argument then runs into reality. As indicated below, Commerce finds dumping in about 95% of the cases. Thus, there are more than 130 AD and CVD orders against China blocking about $30 billion in imports. Presently more than 80 AD and CVD orders are against raw materials from China, chemicals, metals and various steel products, used in downstream US production. In the Steel area, there are AD and CVD orders against the following Chinese steel products:

There are ongoing investigations against cold-rolled steel and corrosion resistant/galvanized steel so many Chinese steel products from China are already blocked by US AD and CVD orders with very high rates well over 100%.

AD and CVD orders stay in place for 5 to 30 years and yet the companies, such as the Steel Industry, still decline. After 40 years of protection from Steel imports by AD and CVD orders, where is Bethlehem Steel today? The Argument seems to be that if industries simply bring more cases, the Commerce Department is even tougher and the orders are enforced, all US companies will be saved, wages will go up and jobs will be everywhere.

The reality, however, is quite different. In fact, many of these orders have led to the destruction of US downstream industries so does hitting the Chinese with more trade cases really solve the trade problem?

More importantly, although Commerce does not use real numbers in antidumping cases against China, it does use actual prices and costs in antidumping steel cases against Korea, India, Taiwan, and many other countries. In a recent antidumping case against Off the Road Tires from India, where China faces dumping rates of between 11 and 105%, the only two Indian exporters, which were both mandatory respondents, received 0% dumping rates and the Commerce Department in a highly unusual preliminary determination reached a negative no dumping determination on the entire case.

Market economy countries, such as Korea and India, can run computer programs to make sure that they are not dumping. This is not gaming the system. This is doing exactly what the antidumping law is trying to remedy—elimination of the unfair act, dumping.

Antidumping and countervailing duty laws are not penal statutes, they are remedial statutes and that is why US importers, who pay the duties, and the foreign producers/exporters are not entitled to full due process rights in AD and CVD cases, including application of the Administrative Procedures Act, decision by a neutral Administrative Law Judge and a full trial type hearing before Commerce and the ITC, such as Section 337 Intellectual Property cases, described below.

In fact, when industries, such as the steel industry, companies and workers along with Government officials see dumping and subsidization in every import into the United States, this mindset creates a disease—Globalization/International Trade victimhood. We American workers and companies simply cannot compete because all imports are dumped and subsidized.

That simply is not true and to win the trade battles and war a change in mindset is required.

In his Article, Mr. Atkinson’s second argument may point to the real answer. The US government needs to make US manufacturing companies competitive again:

It must begin with reducing the effective tax rate on corporations. To believe that America can thrive in the global economy with the world’s highest statutory corporate-tax rates and among the highest effective corporate-tax rates, especially for manufacturers, is to ignore the intense global competitive realities of the 21st century. Tax reform then needs to be complemented with two other key items: a regulatory-reform strategy particularly aimed at reducing burdens on industries that compete globally, and increased funding for programs that help exporters, such as the Export-Import Bank, the new National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, and a robust apprenticeship program for manufacturing workers. . . .

if Congress and the next administration develop a credible new globalization doctrine for the 21st century — melding tough trade enforcement with a robust national competitiveness agenda — then necessary trade-opening steps like the Trans-Pacific Partnership will once again be on the table and the U.S. economy will begin to thrive once again.

When it comes to Trade Adjustment Assistance, however, as Congressman Jim McDermott recently stated in an article, workers do not want handouts and training. They want jobs. The only trade remedy that actually provides jobs is the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms/Companies program and MEP, another manufacturing program.

FREE TRADE REQUIRES COMPETITIVE US COMPANIES— TAA FOR FIRMS/COMPANIES AND THE MEP MANUFACTURING PROGRAM ARE THE ANSWER

On August 17th, in a letter to the Wall Street Journal, the author referred to “the longstanding Republican promotion of trade as an engine of growth.” The author then goes on to state:

But what Donald Trump sees and the Republican elites have long missed is that for trade to be a winner for Americans, our government must provide policies for our industries to be the most competitive in the world. Mr. Zoellick and others promoted trade without promoting American competitiveness. . . .

Mr. Zoellick should take a lesson from the American gymnasts in Rio and see how competitiveness leads to winning.

Although Donald Trump might agree with that point, there are Government programs already in effect that increase the competitiveness of US companies injured by imports, but they have been cut to the bone.

This is despite the fact that some of the highest paying American jobs have routinely been in the nation’s manufacturing sector. And some of the highest prices paid for the nation’s free trade deals have been paid by the folks who work in it. What’s shocking is the fact that that isn’t shocking anymore. And what’s really shocking is that we seem to have accepted it as the “new normal.” Now where did that ever come from?

How did we get here? How did we fall from the summit? Was it inexorable? Did we get soft? Did we get lazy? Did we stop caring? Well perhaps to some extent. But my sense of it is that too many of us have bought into the idea of globalization victimhood and a sort of paralysis has been allowed to set in.

Now in my opinion that’s simply not in America’s DNA. It’s about time that this nation decided not to participate in that mind set any longer. Economists and policy makers of all persuasions are now beginning to recognize the requirement for a robust response by this nation to foreign imports – irrespective of party affiliation or the particular free trade agreement under consideration at any given moment. Companies, workers and Government officials need to stop blaming the foreigner and figure out what they can do to compete with the foreign imports.

There is no doubt in my mind that open and free trade benefits the overall U.S. economy in the long run. However, companies and the families that depend on the employment therein, indeed whole communities, are adversely affected in the short run (some for extended periods) resulting in significant expenditures in public welfare and health programs, deteriorated communities and the overall lowering of America’s industrial output.

But here’s the kicker: programs that can respond effectively already exist. Three of them are domiciled in our Department of Commerce and one in our Department of Labor:

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms (Commerce)

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (Commerce)

Economic Adjustment for Communities (Commerce)

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Displaced Workers (Labor)

This Article, however, is focused on making US companies competitive again and the first two programs do just that, especially for smaller companies. Specific federal support for trade adjustment programs, however, has been legislatively restrictive, bureaucratically hampered, organizationally disjointed, and substantially under-funded.

The lessons of history are clear. In the 1990’s, after the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union, the federal government reduced defense industry procurements and closed military facilities. In response, a multi-agency, multi-year effort to assist adversely affected defense industries, their workers, and communities facing base closures were activated. Although successes usually required years of effort and follow on funding from agencies of proven approaches (for example the reinvention of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard into a center for innovation and vibrant commercial activities), there was a general sense that the federal government was actively responding to a felt need at the local level.

A similar multi-agency response has been developed in the event of natural disasters, i.e., floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. Dimensions of the problem are identified, an appropriate expenditure level for a fixed period of time is authorized and the funds are deployed as needed through FEMA, SBA and other relevant agencies such as EDA.

The analogy to trade policy is powerful. When the US Government enters into Trade Agreements, such as the TPP, Government action changes the market place. All of a sudden US companies can be faced, not with a Tidal Wave, but a series of flash floods of foreign competition and imports that can simply wipe out US companies.

A starting point for a trade adjustment strategy would be for a combined Commerce-Labor approach building upon existing authorities and proven programs, that can be upgraded and executed forthwith.

Commerce’s Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms (TAAF) has 11 regional (multi-state) TAAF Centers but the program has been cut to only $12.5 million annually. The amount of matching funds for US companies has not changed since the 1980s. The system has the band-width to increase to a run rate of $50 million. Projecting a four-year ramp up of $90 million (FY18-FY21), the TAA program could serve an additional 2,150 companies.

Foreign competitors may argue that TAA for Firms/Companies is a subsidy, but the money does not go directly to the companies themselves, but to consultants to work with the companies through a series of knowledge-based projects to make the companies competitive again. Moreover, the program does not affect the US market or block imports in any way.

Does the program work? In the Northwest, where I am located, the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center has been able to save 80% of the companies that entered the program since 1984. The MidAtlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center in this video at http://mataac.org/howitworks/ describes in detail how the program works and why it is so successful—Its flexibility in working with companies on an individual basis to come up with specific adjustment plans for each company to make the companies competitive again in the US market as it exists today.

Increasing funding will allow the TAA for Firms/Companies program to expand its bandwidth and provide relief to larger US companies, including possibly even steel producers. If companies that use steel can be saved by the program, why can’t the steel producers themselves?

But it will take a tough love approach to trade problems. Working with the companies to forget about Globalization victimhood and start trying to actually solve the Company’s problems that hinder its competitiveness in the market as it exists today.

In addition to TAA for Firms/Companies, another important remedy needed to increase competitiveness is Commerce’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), which has a Center in each State and Puerto Rico. MEP provides high quality management and technical assistance to the country’s small manufacturers with an annual budget of $130 million. MEP, in fact, is one the remedies suggested by the TAA Centers along with other projects to make the companies competitive again.

As a consequence of a nation-wide re-invention of the system, MEP is positioned to serve even more companies. A commitment of $100 million over four years would serve an additional 8,400 firms. These funds could be targeted to the small manufacturing firms that are the base of our supply chain threatened by foreign imports.

Each of these programs requires significant non-federal match or cost share from the companies themselves, to assure that the local participants have significant skin in the game and to amplify taxpayer investment. A $250 million commitment from the U.S. government would be a tangible although modest first step in visibly addressing the local consequences of our trade policies. The Department of Commerce would operate these programs in a coordinated fashion, working in collaboration with the Department of Labor’s existing Trade Adjustment Assistance for Displaced Workers program.

TAA for Workers is funded at the $711 million level, but retraining workers should be the last remedy in the US government’s bag. If all else fails, retrain workers, but before that retrain the company so that the jobs and the companies are saved. That is what TAA for Firms/Companies and the MEP program do. Teach companies how to swim in the new market currents created by trade agreements and the US government

In short – this serious and multi-pronged approach will begin the process of stopping globalization victimhood in its tracks.

Attached is White Paper, taaf-2-0-white-paper, prepares to show to expand TAA for Firms/Companies and take it to the next level above $50 million, which can be used to help larger companies adjust to import competition. The White Paper also rebuts the common arguments against TAA for Firms/Companies.

ALUMINUM FOIL FROM CHINA, RISE IN ANTIDUMPING CASES PUSHED BY COMMERCE AND ITC

On August 22, 2016, the Wall Street Journal published an article on how the sharp rise of aluminum foil imports, mostly from China, has led to the shutdown of US U.S. aluminum foil producers. Articles, such as this one, often signal that an antidumping case is coming in the near future.

Recently, there have been several articles about the sharp rise in antidumping and countervailing duty/trade remedy cases in the last year. By the second half of 2016, the US Government has reported that twice as many antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) case have been initiated in 2015-2016 as in 2009.

China is not the only target. AD cases have been recently filed against steel imports from Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey; Steel Flanges from India, Italy and Spain; Chemicals from Korea and China, and Rubber from Brazil, Korea, Mexico and Poland.

The potential Aluminum Foil case may not be filed only against China. In addition to China, the case could also be filed against a number of foreign exporters of aluminum foil to the United States.

Under US law Commerce determines whether dumping is taking place. Dumping is defined as selling imported goods at less than fair value or less than normal value, which in general terms means lower than prices in the home/foreign market or below the fully allocated cost of production. Antidumping duties are levied to remedy the unfair act by raising the US price so that the products are fairly traded.

Commerce also imposes Countervailing Duties to offset any foreign subsidies provided by foreign governments so as to raise the price of the subsidized imports.

AD and CVD duties can only be imposed if there is injury to the US industry, which is determined by the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”). But in determining injury, the law directs the ITC to cumulate, that is add together all the imports of the same product from the various foreign exporters. Thus if a number of countries are exporting aluminum foil in addition to China, there is a real incentive for the US aluminum foil industry to file a case against all the other countries too.

There are several reasons for the sharp rise in AD and CVD cases. One is the state of the economy and the sharp rise in imports. In bad economic times, the two lawyers that do the best are bankruptcy and international trade lawyers. Chinese overcapacity can also result in numerous AD and CVD cases being filed not only in the United States but around the World.

Although the recent passage of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 has made it marginally better to bring an injury case at the ITC, a major reason for the continued rise in AD and CVD cases is the Commerce and ITC determinations in these cases. Bringing an AD case, especially against China, is like the old country saying, shooting fish in a barrel.

By its own regulation, Commerce finds dumping and subsidization in almost every case, and the ITC in Sunset Review Investigations leaves antidumping and countervailing duty orders in place for as long as 20 to 30 years, often to protect single company US industries, resulting in permanent barriers to imports and the creation of monopolies.

Many readers may ask why should people care if prices go up a few dollars at WalMart for US consumers? Jobs remain. Out of the 130 plus AD and CVD orders against China, more than 80 of the orders are against raw materials, chemicals, metals and steel, that go directly into downstream US production. AD orders have led to the closure of downstream US factories.

Commerce has defined dumping so that 95% of the products imported into the United States are dumped. Pursuant to the US Antidumping Law, Commerce chooses mandatory respondent companies to individually respond to the AD questionnaire. Commerce generally picks only two or three companies out of tens, if not hundreds, of respondent companies.

Only mandatory companies in an AD case have the right to get zero, no dumping margins. Only those mandatory respondent companies have the right to show that they are not dumping. If a company gets a 0 percent, no dumping determination, in the initial investigation, the antidumping order does not apply to that company.

Pursuant to the AD law, for the non-mandatory companies, the Commerce Department may use any other reasonable method to calculate antidumping rates, which means weight averaging the rates individually calculated for the mandatory respondents, not including 0 rates. If all mandatory companies receive a 0% rate, Commerce will use any other reasonable method to determine a positive AD rate, not including 0% rates.

So if there are more than two or three respondent companies in an AD case, which is the reality in most cases, by its own law and practice, Commerce will reach an affirmative dumping determination. All three mandatory companies may get 0% dumping rates, but all other companies get a positive dumping rate. Thus almost all imports are by the Commerce Department’s definition dumped.

Under the Commerce Department’s methodology all foreign companies are guilty of dumping and subsidization until they prove their innocence, and almost all foreign companies never have the chance to prove their innocence.

Commerce also has a number of other methodologies to increase antidumping rates. In AD cases against China, Commerce treats China as a nonmarket economy country and, therefore, refuses to use actual prices and costs in China to determine dumping, which makes it very easy for Commerce to find very high dumping rates.

In market economy cases, such as cases against EU and South American countries, Commerce has used zeroing or targeted dumping to create antidumping rates, even though the WTO has found such practices to be contrary to the AD Agreement.

The impact of the Commerce Department’s artificial methodology is further exaggerated by the ITC. Although in the initial investigation, the ITC will go negative, no injury, in 30 to 40% of the cases, once the antidumping order is in place it is almost impossible to persuade the ITC to lift the antidumping order in Sunset Review investigations.

So antidumping orders, such as Pressure Sensitive Tape from Italy (1977), Prestressed Concrete Steel Wire Strand from Japan (1978), Potassium Permanganate from China (1984), Cholopicrin from China (1984), and Porcelain on Steel Cookware from China (1986), have been in place for more than 30 years. In 1987 when I was at the Commerce Department, an antidumping case was filed against Urea from the entire Soviet Union. Antidumping orders from that case against Russia and Ukraine are still in place today.

In addition, many of these antidumping orders, such as Potassium Permanganate, Magnesium, Porcelain on Steel Cookware, and Sulfanilic Acid, are in place to protect one company US industries, creating little monopolies in the United States.

Under the Sunset Review methodology, the ITC never sunsets AD and CVD orders unless the US industry no longer exists.

By defining dumping the way it does, both Commerce and the ITC perpetuate the myth of Globalization victimhood. We US companies and workers simply cannot compete against imports because all imports are dumped or subsidized. But is strangling downstream industries to protect one company US industries truly good trade policy? Does keeping AD orders in place for 20 to 30 years really save the US industry and make the US companies more competitive? The answer simply is no.

Protectionism does not work but it does destroy downstream industries and jobs. Protectionism is destructionism. It costs jobs.

US MISSING $2 BILLION IN ANTIDUMPING DUTIES, MANY ON CHINESE PRODUCTS

According to the attached recent report by the General Accounting Office, gao-report-ad-cvd-missing-duties, the US government is missing about $2.3 billion in unpaid anti-dumping and countervailing duties, two-thirds of which will probably never be paid.

The United States is the only country in the World that has retroactive liability for US importers. When rates go up, US importers are liable for the difference plus interest. But the actual determination of the amount owed by the US imports can take place many years after the import was actually made into the US.

The GAO found that billing errors and delays in final duty assessments were major factors in the unpaid bills, with many of the importers with the largest debts leaving the import business before they received their bill.

“U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported that it does not expect to collect most of that debt”. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) anticipates that about $1.6 billion of the total will never be paid.

As the GAO report states:

elements of the U.S. system for determining and collecting AD/CV duties create an inherent risk that some importers will not pay the full amount they owe in AD/CV duties. . . . three related factors create a heightened risk of AD/CV duty nonpayment: (1) The U.S. system for determining such duties involves the setting of an initial estimated duty rate upon the entry of goods, followed by the retrospective assessment of a final duty rate; (2) the amount of AD/CV duties for which an importer may be ultimately billed can significantly exceed what the importer pays when the goods enter the country; and (3) the assessment of final AD/CV duties can occur up to several years after an importer enters goods into the United States, during which time the importer may cease operations or become unable to pay additional duties.

We estimate the amount of uncollected duties on entries from fiscal year 2001 through 2014 to be $2.3 billion. While CBP collects on most AD/CV duty bills it issues, it only collects, on average, about 31 percent of the dollar amount owed. The large amount of uncollected duties is due in part to the long lag time between entry and billing in the U.S. retrospective AD/CV duty collection system, with an average of about 2-and-a-half years between the time goods enter the United States and the date a bill may be issued. Large differences between the initial estimated duty rate and the final duty rate assessed also contribute to unpaid bills, as importers receiving a large bill long after an entry is made may be unwilling or unable to pay. In 2015, CBP estimated that about $1.6 billion in duties owed was uncollectible. By not fully collecting unpaid AD/CV duty bills, the U.S. government loses a substantial amount of revenue and compromises its efforts to deter and remedy unfair and injurious trade practices.

But with all these missing duties, why doesn’t the US simply move to a prospective methodology, where the importer pays the dumping rate calculated by Commerce and the rate only goes up for future imports after the new rate is published.

Simple answer—the In Terrorem, trade chilling, effect of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders—the legal threat that the US importers will owe millions in the future, which could jeopardize the entire import company. As a result, over time imports from China and other countries covered by AD and CVD order often decline to 0 because established importers are simply too scared to take the risk of importing under an AD and CVD order.

CUTSOMS NEW LAW AGAINST TRANSSHIPMENT AROUND AD AND CVD ORDERS; ONE MORE LEGAL PROCEDURE FOR US IMPORTERS AND FOREIGN EXPORTERS TO BE WARY OF

By Adams Lee, Trade and Customs Partner, Harris Moure.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued new attached regulations, customs-regs-antidumping, that establish a new administrative procedure for CBP to investigate AD and CVD duty evasion. 81 FR 56477 (Aug. 22, 2016). Importers of any product that could remotely be considered merchandise subject to an AD/CVD order now face an increased likelihood of being investigated for AD/CVD duty evasion. The new CBP AD/CVD duty evasion investigations are the latest legal procedure, together with CBP Section 1592 penalty actions (19 USC 1592), CBP criminal prosecutions (18 USC 542, 545), and “qui tam” actions under the False Claims Act, aimed at ensnaring US importers and their foreign suppliers in burdensome and time-consuming proceedings that can result in significant financial expense or even criminal charges.

The following are key points from these new regulations:

CBP now has a new option to pursue and shut down AD/CVD duty evasion schemes.

CBP will have broad discretion to issue questions and conduct on-site verifications.

CBP investigations may result in interim measures that could significantly affect importers.

CBP’s interim measures may effectively establish a presumption of the importer’s guilt until proven innocent.

Other interested parties, including competing importers, can chime in to support CBP investigations against accused importers.

Both petitioners and respondents will have the opportunity to submit information and arguments.

Failure to cooperate and comply with CBP requests may result in CBP applying an adverse inference against the accused party.

Failing to respond adequately may result in CBP determining AD/CVD evasion has occurred.

The new CBP regulations (19 CFR Part 165) establish a formal process for how it will consider allegations of AD/CVD evasion. These new regulations are intended to address complaints from US manufacturers that CBP was not doing enough to address AD/CVD evasion schemes and that their investigations were neither transparent nor effective.

AD/CVD duty evasion schemes typically involve falsely declaring the country of origin or misclassifying the product (e.g., “widget from China” could be misreported as “widget from Malaysia” or “wadget from China”).

Petitions filed by domestic manufacturers trigger concurrent investigations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to determine whether AD/CVD orders should be issued to impose duties on covered imports. The DOC determines if imports have been dumped or subsidized and sets the initial AD/CVD rates. CBP then has the responsibility to collect AD/CVD duty deposits and to assess the final amount of AD/CVD duties owed at the rates determined by DOC.

US petitioners have decried U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as the weak link in enforcing US trade laws, not just because of it often being unable to collect the full amount of AD/CVD duties owed, but also because how CBP responds to allegations of AD/CVD evasion. Parties that provided CBP with information regarding evasion schemes were not allowed to participate in CBP’s investigations and were not notified of whether CBP had initiated an investigation or the results of any investigation.

CBP’s new regulations address many complaints regarding CBP’s lack of transparency in handling AD/CVD evasion allegations. The new regulations provide more details on how CBP procedures are to be conducted, the types of information that will be considered and made available to the public, and the specific timelines and deadlines in CBP investigations:

“Interested parties” for CBP investigations now includes not just the accused importers, but also competing importers that submit the allegations.

Interested parties now have access to public versions of information submitted in CBP’s investigation of AD/CVD evasion allegations.

After submission and receipt of a properly filed allegation, CBP has 15 business day to determine whether to initiate an investigation and 95 days to notify all interested parties of its decision. If CBP does not proceed with an investigation, CBP has five business days to notify the alleging party of that determination.

Within 90 days of initiating an investigation, CBP can impose interim measures if it has a “reasonable suspicion” that the importer used evasion to get products into the U.S.

Many questions remain as to how CBP will apply these regulations to actual investigations. How exactly will parties participate in CBP investigations and what kind of comments will be accepted? How much of the information in the investigations will be made public? How is “reasonable suspicion” defined and what kind of evidence will be considered? Is it really the case that accused Importers may be subject to interim measures (within 90 days of initiation) even before they receive notice of an investigation (within 95 days of initiation)?

These new AD/CVD duty evasion regulations further evidence the government’s plans to step up its efforts to enforce US trade laws more effectively and importers must – in turn – step up their vigilance to avoid being caught in one of these new traps.

UPCOMING DEADLINES IN SOLAR CELLS FROM CHINA ANTIDUMPING CASE—CHANCE TO GET BACK INTO THE US MARKET AGAIN

There are looming deadlines in the Solar Cells from China Antidumping (“AD”) and Countervailing Duty (“CVD”) case. In December 2016, US producers, Chinese companies and US importers can request a review investigation in the Solar Cells case of the sales and imports that entered the United States during the review period, December 1, 2015 to November 31, 2016.

December 2016 will be a very important month for US importers because administrative reviews determine how much US importers actually owe in AD and CVD cases. Generally, the US industry will request a review of all Chinese companies. If a Chinese company does not respond in the Commerce Department’s Administrative Review, its AD and CVD rate could well go to the highest level and for certain imports the US importer will be retroactively liable for the difference plus interest.

In my experience, many US importers do not realize the significance of the administrative review investigations. They think the AD and CVD case is over because the initial investigation is over. Many importers are blindsided because their Chinese supplier did not respond in the administrative review, and the US importers find themselves liable for millions of dollars in retroactive liability.

In February 2016, while in China I found many examples of Chinese solar companies or US importers, which did not file requests for a review investigation in December 2015. In one instance, although the Chinese company obtained a separate rate during the Solar Cells initial investigation, the Petitioner appealed to the Court. The Chinese company did not know the case was appealed, and the importer now owe millions in antidumping duties because they failed to file a review request in December 2015.

In another instance, in the Solar Products case, the Chinese company requested a review investigation in the CVD case but then did not respond to the Commerce quantity and value questionnaire. That could well result in a determination of All Facts Available giving the Chinese company the highest CVD China rate of more than 50%.

The worst catastrophe in CVD cases was Aluminum Extrusions from China where the failure of mandatory companies to respond led to a CVD rate of 374%. In the first review investigation, a Chinese company came to us because Customs had just ruled their auto part to be covered by the Aluminum Extrusions order. To make matters worse, an importer requested a CVD review of the Chinese company, but did not tell the company and they did not realize that a quantity and value questionnaire had been sent to them. We immediately filed a QV response just the day before Commerce’s preliminary determination.

Too late and Commerce gave the Chinese company an AFA rate of 121% by literally assigning the Chinese company every single subsidy in every single province and city in China, even though the Chinese company was located in Guangzhou. Through a Court appeal, we reduced the rate to 79%, but it was still a high rate, so it is very important for companies to keep close watch on review investigations.

The real question many Chinese solar companies may have is how can AD and CVD rates be reduced so that we can start exporting to the US again. In the Solar Cells case, the CVD China wide rate is only 15%. The real barrier to entry is the China wide AD rate of 249%

US AD and CVD laws, however, are considered remedial, not punitive statutes. Thus, every year in the month in which the AD or CVD order was issued, Commerce gives the parties, including the domestic producers, foreign producers and US importers, the right to request a review investigation based on sales of imports that entered the US in the preceding year.

Thus, the AD order on Solar Cells from China was issued in December 2012. In December 2016, a Chinese producer and/or US importer can request a review investigation of the Chinese solar cells that were entered, actually imported into, the US during the period December 1, 2015 to November 31, 2016.

Chinese companies may ask that it is too difficult and too expensive to export may solar cells to the US, requesting a nonaffiliated importer to put up an AD of 298%, which can require a payment of well over $1 million USD. The US AD and CVD law is retrospective. Thus the importer posts a cash deposit when it imports products under an AD or CVD order, and the importer will get back the difference plus interest at the end of the review investigation.

More importantly, through a series of cases, Commerce has let foreign producers export smaller quantities of the product to use as a test sale in a review investigation if all other aspects of the sale are normal. Thus in a Solar Cells review investigation, we had the exporter make a small sale of several panels along with other products and that small sale served as the test sale to establish the new AD rate.

How successful can companies be in reviews? In a recent Solar Cells review investigation, we dropped a dumping rate of 249% to 8.52%, allowing the Chinese Solar Cell companies to begin to export to the US again.

Playing the AD and CVD game in review investigations can significantly reduce AD and CVD rates and get the Chinese company back in the US market again

On August 5, 2016, in the attached fact sheet, factsheet-multiple-hot-rolled-steel-flat-products-ad-cvd-final-080816, Commerce issued final dumping determinations in Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom cases, and a final countervailing duty determination of Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil, Korea, and Turkey.

Other than Brazil, Australia and the United Kingdom, most antidumping rates were in the single digits.

In the Countervailing duty case, most companies got rates in single digits, except for POSCO in Korea, which received a CVD rate of 57%.

For those US import companies that imported : Crawfish Tailmeat, Foundry Coke, Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks, Lined Paper Products, Magnesia Carbon Bricks, Narrow Woven Ribbons, Off the Road Tires, Flexible Magnets, and Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars during the antidumping period September 1, 2015-August 31, 2016 or the countervailing duty period of review, calendar year 2015, the end of this month is a very important deadline. Requests have to be filed at the Commerce Department by the Chinese suppliers, the US importers and US industry by the end of this month to participate in the administrative review.

This is a very important month for US importers because administrative reviews determine how much US importers actually owe in AD and CVD cases. Generally, the US industry will request a review of all Chinese companies. If a Chinese company does not respond in the Commerce Department’s Administrative Review, its antidumping and countervailing duty rate could well go to the highest level and for certain imports the US importer will be retroactively liable for the difference plus interest.

STOP IP INFRINGING PRODUCTS FROM CHINA AND OTHER COUNTRIES USING CUSTOMS AND SECTION 337 CASES

With Amazon and Ebay having increased their efforts at bringing in Chinese sellers and with more and more Chinese manufacturers branching out and making their own products, the number of companies contacting our China lawyers here at Harris Moure about problems with counterfeit products and knockoffs has soared. If the problem involves infringing products being imported into the United States, powerful remedies are available to companies with US IP rights if the infringing imports are products coming across the US border.

If the IP holder has a registered trademark or copyright, the individual or company holding the trademark or copyright can go directly to Customs and record the trademark under 19 CFR 133.1 or the copyright under 19 CFR 133.31. See https://iprr.cbp.gov/.

Many years ago a US floor tile company was having massive problems with imports infringing its copyrights on its tile designs. Initially, we looked at a Section 337 case as described below, but the more we dug down into the facts, we discovered that the company simply failed to register its copyrights with US Customs.

Once the trademarks and copyrights are registered, however, it is very important for the company to continually police the situation and educate the various Customs ports in the United States about the registered trademarks and copyrights and the infringing imports coming into the US. Such a campaign can help educate the Customs officers as to what they should be looking out for when it comes to identifying which imports infringe the trademarks and copyrights in question. The US recording industry many years ago had a very successful campaign at US Customs to stop infringing imports.

For those companies with problems from Chinese infringing imports, another alternative is to go to Chinese Customs to stop the export of infringing products from China. The owner of Beanie Babies did this very successfully having Chinese Customs stop the export of the infringing Beanie Babies out of China.

One of the most powerful remedies is a Section 337 case, which can block infringing products, regardless of their origin, from entering the U.S. A Section 337 action (the name comes from the implementing statute, 19 U.S.C. 1337) is available against imported goods that infringe a copyright, trademark, patent, or trade secret. But because other actions are usually readily available to owners of registered trademarks and copyrights, Section 337 actions are particularly effective for owners of patents, unregistered trademarks, and trade secrets. Although generally limited to IP rights, in the ongoing Section 337 steel case, US Steel has been attempting to expand the definition of unfair acts to include hacking into computer systems and antitrust violations.

The starting point is a section 337 investigation at the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”). If the ITC finds certain imports infringe a specific intellectual property right, it can issue an exclusion order and U.S. Customs will then keep out allthe infringing imports at the border.

Section 337 is a hybrid IP and trade statute, which requires a showing of injury to a US industry. The injury requirement is very low and can nearly always be met–a few lost sales will suffice to show injury. The US industry requirement can be a sticking point. The US industry is usually the one company that holds the intellectual property right in question. If the IP right is a registered trademark, copyright or patent, the US industry requirement has been expanded to not only include significant US investment in plant and equipment, labor or capital to substantial investment in the exploitation of the IP right, including engineering, research and development or licensing. Recently, however, the ITC has raised the US industry requirement to make it harder for patent “trolls” or Non Practicing Entities to bring 337 cases.

Section 337 cases, however, are directed at truly unfair acts. Patents and Copyrights are protected by the US Constitution so in contrast to antidumping and countervailing duty cases, respondents in these cases get more due process protection. The Administrative Procedures Act is applied to Section 337 cases with a full trial before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), extended full discovery, a long trial type hearing, but on a very expedited time frame.

Section 337 actions, in fact, are the bullet train of IP litigation, fast, intense litigation in front of an ALJ. The typical section 337 case takes only 12-15 months. Once a 337 petition is filed, the ITC has 30 days to determine whether or not to institute the case. After institution, the ITC will serve the complaint and notice of investigation on the respondents. Foreign respondents have 30 days to respond to the complaint; US respondents have only 20 days. If the importers or foreign respondents do not respond to the complaint, the ITC can find the companies in default and issue an exclusion order.

The ITC’s jurisdiction in 337 cases is “in rem,” which means it is over the product being imported into the US. This makes sense: the ITC has no power over the foreign companies themselves, but it does have power over the imports. What this means in everyday terms is that unlike most regular litigation, a Section 337 case can be effectively won against a Chinese company that 1) is impossible to serve, 2) fails to show up at the hearing, and 3) is impossible to collect any money from.

The remedy in section 337 cases is an exclusion order excluding the respondent’s infringing products from entering the United States. In special situations, however, where it is very easy to manufacture a product, the ITC can issue a general exclusion order against the World. In the Rubik’s Cube puzzle case, which was my case at the ITC, Ideal (the claimant) named over 400 Taiwan companies as respondents infringing its common law trademark. The ITC issued a General Exclusion Order in 1983 and it is still in force today, blocking Rubik’s Cube not made by Ideal from entering the United States. In addition to exclusion orders, the ITC can issue cease and desist orders prohibiting US importers from selling products in inventory that infringe the IP rights in question

Section 337 cases can also be privately settled, but the settlement agreement is subject to ITC review. We frequently work with our respondent clients to settle 337 cases early to minimize their legal fees. In the early 1990s, RCA filed a section 337 case against TVs from China. The Chinese companies all quickly settled the case by signing a license agreement with RCA.

Respondents caught in section 337 cases often can modify their designs to avoid the IP right in question. John Deere brought a famous 337 case aimed at Chinese companies that painted their tractors green and yellow infringing John Deere’s trademark. Most of the Chinese respondents settled the case and painted their tractors different colors, such as blue and red.

Bottom Line: Section 337 cases are intense litigation before the ITC, and should be considered by U.S. companies as a tool for fighting against infringing products entering the United States. On the flip side, US importers and foreign respondents named in these cases should take them very seriously and respond quickly because exclusion orders can stay in place for years.

If you have any questions about these cases or about the antidumping or countervailing duty law, US trade policy, trade adjustment assistance, customs, or 337 IP/patent law in general, please feel free to contact me.

This January newsletter will cover trade policy, trade, general litigation, 337/patents, antitrust and securities .

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

TRADE POLICY

TPP RUNS INTO HEADWINDS

As predicted in past blog posts, on December 28, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that the US Election Debate was complicating the passage of the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) in Congress. The Wall Street Journal specifically stated:

The trade agreement is expected to lead to some job losses and boost competition for some companies—including labor-intensive manufacturers and Detroit auto makers.

Still, many economists say it would generate overall gains to U.S. gross domestic product and increase incomes for many Americans in ways that improve the overall economy.

The TPP’s potential to create vocal middle-class losers makes the agreement harder to pass in an election year, since the winners, even if more numerous, are likely to be less motivated.

GOP lawmakers and officials, backed by big businesses, have more reliably supported trade agreements than Democrats, who tend to be closer to the labor movement. Among the broad electorate, blue-collar workers of both parties are skeptical of freer trade.

Recently Republican voters have emerged as bigger opponents, a shift not lost on the tea-party movement and Mr. Trump. In a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 56% of Democrats said free trade is good for America, compared with 48% of Republicans.

Trade experts say Mr. Trump’s policies would make him, if elected, the biggest fan of tariffs since the late 19th century presidency of William McKinley. . . .

For Mr. Cruz or another GOP president, White House policy on trade would likely depend on whether the party is controlled by the pro-business wing that has dominated the party since World War II or shifts toward protectionist ideas espoused by Mr. Trump.

Meanwhile on December 10, 2015, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced that there would be no vote on the TPP until after the election. McConnell indicated that he was undecided on the vote, but he was sure that the TPP would be defeated if it were sent to Capitol Hill next spring or summer. McConnell further stated:

“It certainly shouldn’t come before the election. I don’t think so, and I have some serious problems with what I think it is. But I think the President would be making a big mistake to try to have that voted on during the election. There’s significant pushback all over the place.

Yeah, I think it would be a big mistake to send it up before the election.

The next president, whoever that is, will have the authority to either revisit this one, if it doesn’t pass, or finish the European deal or other deals, and give Congress a chance to weigh in on it,”

McConnell who opposes the tobacco provisions in the TPP, has joined with Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), the Senate Finance Committee chairman, who was also a key supporter of the fast-track legislation, but has raised particular concerns about provisions related to pharmaceutical companies. Utah has a growing pharmaceutical industry.

McConnell’s and Hatch’s concerns have reduced the enthusiasm among the Republicans as the debate over trade policies on the 2016 campaign trail has become entangled in Presidential politics. Several top contenders for the GOP presidential nomination, including Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), have denounced the pact, and all of the Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Saunders, oppose it.

On January 7, 2016, however, the White House pushed for a TPP vote sooner rather than later, arguing for a quick vote warning that a delay of the vote to the lame-duck session of Congress or into the next administration would be a significant lost opportunity. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in a press briefing that Congress should act quickly to ratify the plan amid recent turbulence in the China stock market, which some media reports have said is in its worst shape since the global financial crisis. He further stated that the best way for the U.S. economy to weather volatility in international markets is through the TPP:

“I’m not suggesting that Congress should fast-forward through that process and vote today. But I am suggesting that we should move expeditiously through this process and that Congress should not wait until the end of the year or even next year to approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.”

One point in favor of TPP is that on January 4, 2016 the National Association of Manufacturers announced that they were in support of the TPP. NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons stated:

“After careful analysis, the NAM will support the TPP as it will open markets and put manufacturers in a much stronger position to compete in an important and growing region of the world.

We recognize this agreement is not perfect, and there are some principled objections to the TPP, so the NAM will continue to work closely with its members to address remaining barriers.

Importantly, we encourage the administration to work closely with the industry, Congressional leaders and the other TPP governments to address these key issues.”

Subsequently, a coalition of top U.S. CEOs from the Business Roundtable gave the TPP a firm endorsement, but urged the Obama administration to quickly alter portions of the deal that are not up to par. As the Business Round Table International Engagement Committee stated:

“We want Congress to approve the TPP this year. To that end, we are urging the administration to quickly address the remaining issues that impact certain business sectors in order to ensure the broadest possible benefits to all sectors of U.S. business, which will enable the broadest support possible for the TPP.”

But in addition to tobacco and pharmaceutical problems in the TPP, another issue is banking and data flows. On January 12, 2016, in a letter to three Cabinet Secretaries, a bipartisan group of 63 Congressional representatives urged the Obama administration officials to correct the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s exclusion of financial services from the agreement’s e-commerce chapter, warning that the current text of the deal leaves banks exposed to risky data storage rules. The letter stated:

“Omission of these disciplines in the TPP is a missed opportunity to ensure that all U.S. companies benefit from strong rules prohibiting localization requirements. We note that such disciplines can be included in trade agreements while maintaining the ability of U.S. regulators to protect consumers through prudential regulation.”

The TPP’s e-commerce chapter contains a general ban on the localization of data through the establishment of expensive in-country servers. But the lawmakers argued that the banking, insurance and securities industries are not different from other sectors that depend on the unimpeded flow of data to keep their businesses running in the World marketplace. The letter further states:

“These types of requirements not only impair the competitiveness of U.S. companies but also reduce overall data security and create inefficiencies. We request that your agencies use all available measures to address the existing gaps in the TPP. In addition, going forward, we request that there be a single approach that prohibits localization requirements in future trade and investment agreements.”

On November 5, 2015, the United States Trade Representative Office (“USTR”) released the text of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (“TPP”). This is an enormous trade agreement covering 12 countries, including the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, and covers 40% of the World’s economy. To read more about the TPP and the political negotiations behind the Agreement see past blog posts.

On December 9, 2015, in the attached announcement, Trade-and-Environment-Policy-Advisory-Committee.pdf, Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch, House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member, Ron Wyden, announced a final agreement on the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015.

Interest groups on both sides of the issue have increased their political attacks in the debate over China’s market economy status. On December 11, 2016, pursuant to the WTO Agreement, the 15 year provision, expires.

More specifically, the United States faces a looming deadline under the WTO Agreement with regard to the application of this nonmarket economy methodology to China. Section 15 of the China WTO Accession Agreement, which originated from the US China WTO Accession Agreement, provides:

Price Comparability in Determining Subsidies and Dumping . . .

(a) In determining price comparability under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation or a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China based on the following rules: . . .

(ii) The importing WTO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under investigation cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture, production and sale of that product. . . .

(d) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it is a market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided that the importing Member’s national law contains market economy criteria as of the date of accession. In any event, the provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession. In addition, should China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO Member, that market economy conditions prevail in a particular industry or sector, the non-market economy provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector.

In other words, pursuant to the China WTO Accession Agreement, Commerce’s right to us a nonmarket economy methodology “shall expire 15 years after the date of accession”. China acceded to the WTO on December 11, 2001 so Section 15(d) should kick in on December 11, 2016.

That provision specifies that an importing WTO member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices and costs in China to determine normal value in an AD case, if producers of a given product under investigation cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in their industry.

The question that is now being debated is whether Section 15(d) automatically ends the possibility of using a non-market economy methodology to China or if it can still be applied if petitioners can show that market conditions do not prevail for producers of the product under investigation.

In November 2015 European Union Industry Commissioner Elzbieta Bienkowska told the European Parliament that geopolitical considerations must be weighed against the industrial interests of the EU in the evaluation of extending market economy status (NME) to China.

On October 30, 2015, it was reported that during a visit to China, German Chancellor Angela Merkel backs more ‘market economy status’ for China – with certain conditions. More specifically, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated:

“Germany supports, in general, China’s claim to get the market economy status. At the same time China has to do some homework, for example in the area of public procurement. But we want to advance the process – as we want to do that with the EU-China investment agreement.”

Under the NME methodology, administering authorities in countries administering antidumping laws, such as the US Commerce Department, do not use actual costs and prices in China to determine antidumping rates. Instead the administering authorities use values in various surrogate countries, which in the Commerce Department’s case, can change between preliminary and final determinations and various review investigations to determine the foreign value. As a result, neither the Commerce Department nor other foreign countries can know whether China is truly dumping.

The European Union Industry commission is seen as strongly favoring a change to market economy status for China, but the European parliament has not taken such a strong stand.

In the U.S., the Commerce Department has taken the position that it will not automatically bestow market economy status on China, but will consider if it meets the statutory criteria for doing so in the context of a specific case if it receives a properly filed petition.

Other countries that are not likely to bestow automatic market economy status to China at the end of 2016 are Japan, Canada, Brazil and India.

On Dec. 30, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang made clear that China is pushing for the granting of market economy status, stating:

“We hope that the EU can set a good example in obeying the WTO rules and take substantive actions to meet its obligations under Article 15 of the Protocol, which will also facilitate the development of China-EU economic and trade ties.”

Steel industries and unions in both the US and EU are fighting hard against giving China market economy status. As indicated below, steel experts have been pointing to the large overcapacity of the Chinese steel industry. But with almost all Chinese steel blocked from entry into the US by large antidumping and countervailing duties, it is questionable how much weight such arguments will be given.

The only two major Chinese steel products still coming into the US are galvanized and cold-rolled steel, and based on surrogate values, Commerce just issued very high antidumping and countervailing duty rates against both products, wiping them out of the US market. Currently, if not all, almost all, steel products from China are covered by an AD order and often also a CVD order, including carbon steel plate, hot rolled carbon steel flat products, circular welded carbon quality steel pipe, light walled rectangular pipe and tube, circular welded carbon quality steel line pipe, circular welded austenitic stainless pressure pipe, steel threaded rod, oil country tubular goods, prestressed concrete steel wire strand, seamless carbon and alloy steel standard line and pressure pipe, high pressure steel cylinders, prestreessed concrete steel rail tire wire, non-oriented electrical steel, and carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod.

On Dec. 22, the United Steelworkers (“USW”) union, according to a USW press release, held a private meeting in Minnesota with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, as well as Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Al Franken (D-MN), at which they discussed the “urgency of federal, state and local government authorities to provide more immediate relief against the global onslaught of steel imports that have shut down half of the region’s steel sector mining jobs,” Emil Ramirez, director for USW District 11 — which covers Midwestern states including Minnesota, Missouri and Montana — said at the meeting that the union is “at war with China’s illegal steel imports flooding into our market.” He added that China had in some months in 2015 dumped more than 100,000 tons of cold-rolled steel into the U.S. market, contributing to mining job losses in Northern Minnesota’s so-called “Iron Range” A day later, the union welcomed what it called a “whopping” 255.8% preliminary AD rate on Chinese corrosion-resistant steel based on surrogate values, despite the fact that all the other antidumping rates against other countries based on actual prices and costs were in the single digits or 0s.

On October 26, 2015, Leo Gerard, who heads the Steel Union, sent the following attached letter,USW CHINA NME , to USTR Michael Froman about steel imports and China’s market economy status:

Dear Ambassador Froman:

I am writing to you regarding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the potential for U.S manufacturing interests to be adversely affected by how the European Union (EU) may change its current treatment of the People’s Republic of China (China) as a non-market economy.

As you well know, under the terms of China’s Protocol of Access to the World Trade Organization, other WTO members had the right to treat the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) for purposes of antidumping and countervailing duty laws. One clause regarding the treatment of China expires on December 11, 2016, but the remaining language continues to operate. This has led to an active effort by China to end its treatment as a non-market economy by those countries which continue to treat it as such so as to gain preferential treatment. The media has suggested that while the EU has not decided how it will proceed, an internal EU memo argues for granting market economy treatment. This memo is not yet public. How China is treated under U.S. and EU antidumping laws is critical to workers and companies in both countries. With massive distortions in most aspects of the Chinese economy, changing China’s status before their economy in fact operates on market principles on a sustained and verifiable basis will have far reaching consequences for workers, companies and communities across the U.S. and the EU. If the EU makes a change in treatment of China under its antidumping law when China has not in fact truly engaged in comprehensive reform of its economy, there will be broad repercussions for how fair market conditions will be assessed in Europe and, in terms of U.S. exports to the EU, could result in dramatically lower opportunities for the export of America’s manufactured products.

As noted, press reports indicate that the EU is considering granting China market economy status in the near future, despite overwhelming evidence of the continued state-led direction, intervention, subsidization and control of that country’s economy and its firms. If the EU chooses to grant China this preferential status, either for the country as a whole or for individual sectors or firms, it will subject U.S. products to a potential risk of having to compete against unfairly traded products in the EU and, potentially, as components in products shipped to the U.S. or to third country markets. Thus, the EU’s decisions in this area must be addressed as part of the ongoing TTIP negotiations and that any alterations in their treatment of China as a NME be subject to dispute resolution and potential compensation for any adverse effects it may have on the U.S., producers and workers

The TPP negotiations have overshadowed the TTIP negotiations and, as a result, many important issues are receiving limited attention. The EU’s potential actions in this area must not be viewed simply as a matter for the EU Commission to consider but, rather, must be addressed in terms of their potential impact on the U.S. manufacturing sector and its employees.

I look forward to working with you on this important matter.

Sincerely,

Leo W. Gerard

International President

CHINA CURRENCY APPROVED BY THE INTERENATIONAL MONETARY FUND AS A MAIN WORLD CURRENCY

In the past, one of the arguments that Commerce has used to deny China market economy status is that the Chinese yuan/RMB is not convertible. On November 30, 2015, however, in the attached announcement, IMF PRESS RELEASE, the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”) announced that the Chinese renminbi will become the fifth currency to be included in the organization’s international reserve asset that supplements member countries’ official reserves.

As the IMF stated the renminbi, or RMB, will join the U.S. dollar, the euro, the Japanese yen and the British pound on Oct. 1, 2016, in a basket of currencies known as the Special Drawing Right, which plays a critical role in providing liquidity to the global economic system, especially during financial crises, the IMF said.

IMF managing director Christine Lagarde stated that the executive board’s decision is “an important milestone” recognizing China’s integration in the international financial system:

“It is also a recognition of the progress that the Chinese authorities have made in the past years in reforming China’s monetary and financial systems. The continuation and deepening of these efforts will bring about a more robust international monetary and financial system, which in turn will support the growth and stability of China and the global economy.”

Lagarde’s decision was based on a paper prepared by IMF staff, which determined that the RMB is a “freely usable” currency.

The IMF. designation, an accounting unit known as the special drawing rights, bestows global importance. Many central banks follow this benchmark in building their reserves, which countries hold to help protect their economies in times of trouble. By adding the renminbi to this group, the IMF effectively considers a currency to be safe and reliable.

EXIM BANK RISES FROM THE DEAD BUT THEN RUNS INTO A NEW ROADBLOCK

Congress let the Export-Import (“EXIM”) Bank’s lending authority expire after June 30, but a number of Republicans in the House of Representatives, including Congressman Dave Reichert, currently Chairman Subcommittee on Trade, House Ways and Means, joined Democrats to force a vote in October to resurrect the Bank. The House attached Ex-Im to a highway funding bill and stopped ten amendments that would have limited the bank’s scope. This highway/Ex-Im bill passed the House 363 to 64. In December negotiators from both chambers of Congress reached an agreement that revived the bank’s lending authority through Sept. 30, 2019.

On December 3, 2015, the Senate passed the Transportation Bill with the Reauthorization of the EX-IM Bank, and on December 4, 2015, President Obama signed the bill into law.

The arguments for the EX-IM Bank are many, as Steve Myrow, who used to work at the EXIM Bank, stated in an Article in The Hill on July 9, 2014:

The debate over reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank has become the latest proxy battle between the conservative and establishment wings of the Republican Party. However, this issue should not be used as an ideological litmus test. Instead, it should evoke a practical and constructive dialogue about how best to level the playing field for American businesses overseas while protecting taxpayers here at home.

Founded in 1934, the Export-Import Bank’s mission has not changed throughout its 80-year history. Its raison d’être has always been to create jobs at home by financing the sale of American goods and services abroad. Ex-Im Bank does not compete with private-sector lenders, but rather seeks to match the foreign government support that U.S. firms’ foreign competitors enjoy.

When I served in the bank’s leadership in President George W. Bush’s administration, our overarching goal was to steer the bank between two beacons — one focused on creating jobs and the other on protecting the taxpayers.

We believed, as did members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, that an ideal way to navigate these two beacons was to convert the bank into one of the only truly self-sustaining government agencies.

By making the bank stand on its own two feet and rely solely on its revenue stream to fund its operations, we not only made it possible for companies to grow high-quality domestic jobs, but we earned a profit for the taxpayers.

Few government agencies can claim to have reduced the deficit, a fact that should be especially welcome during the current era of austerity.

Nevertheless, some of the bank’s Congressional detractors argue that it distorts the market by providing a subsidy. It’s true that in a perfect market, subsidies should not exist. But unfortunately, the real world is not a perfect market. Most countries that meaningfully benefit from international trade provide varying degrees of export subsidies.

Some identify specific firms as their national champions and others, like China, even provide financing on terms more akin to development assistance.

To put it another way, should the U.S. unilaterally disarm just because atomic weapons are undesirable? Of course not. We need a nuclear arsenal because other countries have them. The same is true for maintaining an export credit agency. Ex-Im Bank’s role is to ensure that U.S. exporters get a fair chance to compete based on quality, price and service, rather than on the basis of financing assistance.

But despite the many arguments in favor of the EXIM bank and the passage of the reauthorization, EXIM is not out of the woods yet. Senator Shelby, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has held up nominations for the EXIM bank Board of Directors. Because there is no quorum, the failure to appoint a new director means that no large projects, such as the sale of Boeing airplanes or sales of GE products, can be approved.

EXIM’s board of directors has only two of the five members it is supposed to have, including Chairman Fred Hochberg. That means it cannot approve loans above $10 million, which make up about a third, value-wise, of EXIM’s transactions.

More specifically, Democrats have sought consent for the nomination of Patricia Loui-Schmicker to the EXIM Bank board of directors, despite the fact that the White House sought a second term for her in March 2015. Loui-Schmicker is needed to give the Ex-Im bank five-member board a quorum. The panel reviews Ex-Im Bank loans above $10 million.

On January 11th, President Obama withdrew the nomination of Democrat Loui-Schmicker and nominated John Mark Mcwatters, a former staffer to House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling, to fill one of the vacant Republican seats on the Export-Import Bank’s board of directors. McWatters’ former boss, Hensarling, chairman of the House’s Financial Services Committee, has led efforts to shut down the Export-Import Bank.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, who opposed Ex-Im’s reauthorization last year, however, has expressed little interest in acting on any nominees to fill its board openings. On January 11, 2016, Senator Shelby indicated that clearing the panel’s backlog of nominees might not see much progress before his March 1 primary in Alabama, stating, “I’m in the primary now. That’s what’s going to eat a lot of my time up – always does.”

When asked about the McWatters nomination, to fill one of the vacant Republican seats on the Export-Import Bank’s board of directors, Shelby stated, “I’m in a primary right now. We’re in no hurry to hold hearings.”

On November 20, 2015, the Commerce Department issued the attached final determination in the 2013-2014 antidumping review investigation of aluminum extrusions from China, ALUMINUM EXTRUSIONS FINAL. Based on surrogate values, Commerce issued antidumping rates of 86.01%, but for companies that did not cooperate, Commerce issued antidumping rates of only 33.28%.

Meanwhile, US producers are growing concerned over a large stockpile of aluminum extrusions at a casting facility in Mexico. Aluminicaste Fundición de México S. de RL de CV, a producer of secondary billet, slab and forging billet, is storing around 850,000 tonnes of aluminum extrusions at its San José Iturbide, Mexico, facility.

It was reported that the extrusions had been shipped directly from extrusion plants in China and were being remelted into billet at the Mexico facility. The source told the American Metals Market:

“Yes, it’s about 850,000 (tonnes) on the ground. The quality of the metal is very good. It’s coming from billets that are extruded in China, shipped to Mexico, and made back into billet. They are currently casting at full capacity, which is about 100,000 (tonnes) per year.”

“It’s a lot of metal. Even me, I have not seen that much metal before. It was 300,000 (tonnes) about a year ago and quickly grew to 850,000 (tonnes).”

The practice of importing extrusions from China and remelting them into billet is not illegal or known to violate any law.

NEW TRADE CASES COMING—RAW ALUMINUM

In light of the impact of the aluminum extrusions case on the US market, the import problem has now moved upstream. The next round of antidumping and countervailing duty cases against China looks like it will be on raw aluminum products.

As indicated in the attached letter, NEW ALUMINUM CASES COMING, on November 24, 2015, the US Aluminum Association and the Canadian Aluminum Producers complained about Chinese aluminum production and the subsidies they receive:

Dear Secretary Kerry and Minister McKenna,

We write to you representing aluminum producers in the United States and Canada. We are concerned about China’s state-planned and carbon intensive aluminum industry which has amassed considerable overproduction. This not only leads to a distortion of international trade impacting our entire value chain, but also undermines global efforts to decarbonize the economy. . . .

Only ten years ago China supplied 24% of the world’s primary aluminum. Today, spurred by energy subsidies, Chinese manufacturers have more than doubled their output and supply 52% of all primary aluminum produced globally. At the same time, this massive increase in production entails a significant environmental consequence.

Aluminum production in China is the most carbon intensive in the world, with its coal-based smelters emitting significantly more greenhouse gases per ton of aluminum than its North American counterparts. In fact, a ton of aluminum produced in China is at least twice as carbon-intensive as that same metal produced in North America. Given the rapid expansion of high-carbon aluminum production in China, many of the efficiency and emission reduction gains made by the global aluminum industry over the last several decades are being offset. . . .

The U.S. and Canadian aluminum industry is concerned that overproduction in China will continue unabated and is insufficiently regulated. These commitments represent a critical opportunity for China to advance energy efficiency and emissions reductions targets in support of global commitments to address climate change.

We appreciate your support to help us to reestablish fair trade conditions and to make a significant contribution to advancing a low-carbon global economy. . . .

Letters, like this, are usually a sign that an antidumping/countervailing duty case is coming. In addition, US aluminum producers have launched a new China Trade Task Force with their target being “illegal” Chinese government subsidies. In a letter to USTR Michael Froman, the US producers asked USTR to intervene on behalf of an industry that supports thousands of jobs:

This price drop has forced aluminum smelters across the United States to close while Chinese government continues to prop-up its producers through these unfair and illegal subsidies.”

THE ONGOING STEEL CASES

Many companies have been asking me about the ongoing Steel antidumping and countervailing duty cases so this section will address the Steel cases in more detail.

As happened in the OCTG cases, where Chinese OCTG was simply replaced by imports from Korea, India, Taiwan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Thailand and Turkey, the same scenario is happening in other steel cases, such as the recent cold-rolled and corrosion-resistant/galvanized steel cases.

Based on the nonmarket economy antidumping methodology, which does not use actual prices and costs in China, in the two recent cases Chinese steel companies were smashed with high antidumping rates of 200 to 300 percent. In the Cold Rolled Steel countervailing duty case, the Chinese companies and Chinese government simply gave up and received a rate over 200%.

But all the other countries, including Russia, which has market economy status, received antidumping rates in the single digits or 0s for no dumping. Steel will continue to flow into the United States in large amounts because such small antidumping and countervailing duty rates simply will have no effect.

The decisions also indicate why the Unions and the Steel industry will fight very hard in Congress and before the Administration to push the Commerce Department to continue using the nonmarket economy methodology against China. It easy for Commerce to find dumping when it uses fake numbers/surrogate values from third countries, which have no relationship to actual prices and costs in China.

COLD ROLLED STEEL FROM CHINA, BRAZIL, KOREA, INDIA AND RUSSIA

On December 16, 2015, Commerce issued its attached preliminary countervailing duty determination, factsheet-multiple-cold-rolled-steel-flat-products-cvd-prelim-121615, in Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil, China, India, and Russia and No Countervailable Subsidization of Imports of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Korea. The effect of the case is to wipe all Chinese cold rolled steel out of the United States with a countervailing duty (CVD) rate of 227.29%.

The 227.29% CVD rate for all the Chinese companies was based on all facts available as the Chinese government and the Chinese steel companies simply refused to cooperate realizing that it was a futile exercise to fight the case at Commerce because of the surrogate value methodology and refusal to use actual prices and costs in China.

As also predicted, the countervailing duty rates for all the other countries were very low, if not nonexistent: Brazil 7.42% for all companies, India 4.45% for all companies, Korea 0 for all companies and Russia 0 to 6.33% for all companies.

On December 22, 2015, in the attached factsheet, factsheet-multiple-corrosion-resistant-steel-products-122215, Commerce announced its affirmative preliminary determinations in the antidumping duty (AD) investigations of imports of corrosion-resistant steel products from China, India, Italy, and Korea, and its negative preliminary determination in the AD investigation of imports of corrosion-resistant steel products from Taiwan.

China received antidumping rates of 255.8%, but antidumping rates from the other countries were very low.

India received rates ranging from 6.64 to 6.92%. Italy received rates from 0 to 3.11%. Korea received rates from 2.99 to 3.51%. Taiwan’s antidumping rates were all 0s.

Although the US industry was pleased with the rate against China, AK Steel Corp. stated, “we are disappointed that the preliminary dumping margins for India, Italy, South Korea and Taiwan were not higher as they do not appear to adequately address the dumping that we believe is occurring in the U.S. market.”

Because Commerce uses market economy methodology in antidumping cases against these countries, companies in those countries can use computer programs to eliminate or reduce significantly their antidumping rates. Foreign steel companies know they will be targeted by US antidumping and countervailing duty cases, and, therefore, prepare for such suits by eliminating the unfair acts.

The fact that the antidumping and countervailing duty rates in these cases are so low strongly indicate that the US Steel Industry’s problem is not steel imports. The problem is the US steel industry’s failure to modernize their facilities and remain competitive with the rest of the world.

HOW NME METHODOLOGY IN ANTIDUMPING CASES LEADS TO OVER CAPACITY IN CHINESE STEEL AND ALUMINUM INDUSTRIES

Meanwhile, US experts complain about Chinese overcapacity in the Steel and Aluminum industries. In a December 1, 2015 article, one expert, Terence P. Stewart, Law Offices of Stewart and Stewart, which represents the Unions and various steel companies in US antidumping and countervailing cases against China, including the recent Off the Road Tires case against China, complained about Chinese overcapacity in the Steel and Aluminum industries and their distortive impact on the World steel and aluminum markets stating:

In the United States, the domestic steel industry is in the midst of a major crisis as they try to deal with waves of imports that seem to flow directly (i.e., imports from China) and indirectly (i.e., from other countries facing import challenges from China in their home markets and hence expanding their exports) from massive excess capacity in China and in other countries. . . .

The story is being repeated in the aluminum sector as well with many unwrought aluminum facilities being closed in the US and other western countries in recent years and some trade cases being filed. Indeed, Alcoa recently announced the idling of three facilities in the U.S. (New York and Washington) with a capacity of more than a half million tons —a significant portion of the remaining capacity in the United States. The problem again flows from massive excess capacity in China.

In both sectors, the underlying facts are similar. In the late 1990s, Chinese capacity amounted to 10-15 percent of global capacity. With massive government incentives, state ownership and support, by 2014 each industry had ballooned to have more than half of global capacity having accounted for nearly 80 percent of global capacity expansions. . . .

Without concerted efforts by China itself and its trading partners, the balance will be achieved only at the expense of countries that had nothing to do with the creation of the problem — a grossly inequitable and economically and politically unacceptable outcome. . . .

The Article goes on to complain that China should do this and do that, such as establishing “voluntary export restraints on all product sectors where it has serious excess capacity to reduce the problems it has created for its trading partners” and “China could implement the many remaining reforms needed to have its economy actually operate on market forces.” It should be noted that voluntary export restraints and prices floors are export restraints, which are specifically prohibited in the China-WTO Agreement. In fact, when in the past the Chinese government tried to set price floors to deter dumping, the US government took the Chinese government to the WTO and US antitrust cases were filed against the Chinese companies.

The Article goes on to state:

All of China’s major trading partners need to encourage China to solve its internal problem quickly. Trading partners need to be prepared to act quickly to apply such pressure as will enable China to overcome any internal reluctance to face the significant challenges. This means using the tools that currently exist, including WTO disputes, to make clear the enormous damage being done to others by China’s subsidy practices. . . .

Finally, the U.S., EU and other trading partners with trade remedy laws that have found China to be a nonmarket economy, should ensure that their industries and workers can obtain the full measure of trade remedy relief existing laws, regulations and practices provide until such time as China has in fact achieved the serious reforms still needed for its economy to work on market principles.

Unfortunately, US industries and domestic experts never ask the real question. Why should the Chinese government and Chinese companies listen to these complaints when the US government and governments in other countries continue to attack China using antidumping and countervailing duty cases based on fake numbers?

As indicated above, US antidumping and countervailing duty orders and ongoing cases have the effect of blocking almost 100% of Chinese steel from the US market. Since the US steel industry, the Unions and their representatives have declared a trade war with China, why should the Chinese government and companies listen to the United States?

In talking with Chinese Government officials in the past, they told me that US antidumping cases could be ok because they could be used to regulate Chinese production. Some Chinese companies undoubtedly are truly dumping. If Chinese companies get hit with real very high antidumping rates based on actual prices and costs in China, that could cause the company to shut down.

But when antidumping cases are based on phony numbers/surrogate values, which have no relationship to the actual situation in China, the US government creates a game and the Chinese government and the Chinese companies will simply play or not play the game. But they will not listen to sanctimonious arguments from US experts, who do not want the Chinese to compete on a level playing field with the US and other countries, such as Russia and Iran, and instead want to continue a trade war with China based on fake numbers.

SOLAR CELLS REVIEW DETERMINATION

On December 18, 2015, in the attached decision, the Commerce Department issued its preliminary determination in the 2013-2014 Solar Cells antidumping review investigation, SOLAR CELLS AD PRELIM. The antidumping rates range from 4.53% for Trina to 11.47% for Yingli. The average dumping rate for the Chinese separate rate companies is 7.27%.

CIT REMANDS GLYCINE CASE BACK TO COMMERCE BECAUSE OF ITS PUNITIVE 453% ANTIDUMPING RATE.

On November 3, 2015, in Baoding Mantong Fine Chemistry Co., Ltd. v. United States, the Court of International Trade in the attached decision, BAODING VS US PUNITIVE CALCULATION, reversed the Commerce Department’ s determination in Glycine from China, holding that Commerce had issued a 453% punitive tariff against Baoding in violation of the remedial purpose of the statute. As the CIT stated:

“The court rules that Commerce failed to fulfill its obligation to determine the most accurate margin possible when it assigned Baoding a weighted average dumping margin of 453.79%, which on the record of this case was not realistic in any commercial or economic sense and punitive in its effect. The court directs Commerce to determine a new margin for Baoding that is the most accurate margin possible, that is grounded in the commercial and economic reality surrounding the production and sale of Baoding’s subject merchandise, and that is fair, equitable, and not so large as to be punitive.”

As Judge Stanceu further stated:

“In assigning Baoding such a huge margin, Commerce has lost sight of the purpose of the antidumping duty statute, which is remedial, not punitive. The 453.79 percent margin is undeniably punitive in effect, regardless of the department’s intent, and it violates the department’s obligation to treat every party before it fairly and equitably as well as the obligation to arrive at the most accurate margin possible.”

Judge Stanceu said the agency was misstating the law, and that the facts demonstrate that the margin assigned is “commercially impossible.”

ROLLR BEARINGS PRODUCED IN THAILAND FROM CHINA SUBPARTS CANNOT BE COVERED BY BEARINGS ORDER AGAINST CHINA

On December 22, 2015 in the attached decision, Peer Bearing Company-Changshan v. United States,PEER BEARING CASE, the Court of International Trade held that roller bearings made in Thailand from Chinese parts were not subject to an anti-dumping duty order against Chinese bearings because the production process in Thailand had the effect of substantially transforming the roller bearings into a product of Thailand, not China.

MELAMINE FROM CHINA ANTIDUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS

On December 1, 2015, Commerce issued the attached antidumping and countervailing duty orders against Melamine from China, MELAMINE AD ORDERS. The Antidumping rate for China is 363.31% and the Countervailing Duties range from 154 to 156.9%.

LARGE RESIDENTIAL WASHERS FROM CHINA

On December 16, 2015, Whirlpool filed a major antidumping and countervailing duty case against Large Residential Washers from China. According to the Petition, the real target companies are the Korean companies, Samsung and LG, and their production facilities in China.

The specific products covered by the petition are:

the term “large residential washers” denotes all automatic clothes washing machines, regardless of the orientation of the rotational axis, with a cabinet width (measured from its widest point) of at least 24.5 inches (62.23 em) and no more than 32.0 inches (81.28 em), except as noted below.

Also covered are certain parts used in large residential washers, namely: (1) all cabinets, or portions thereof, designed for use in large residential washers; (2) all assembled tubs designed for use in large residential washers which incorporate, at a minimum: (a) a tub; and (b) a seal; (3) all assembled baskets 11 designed for use in large residential washers which incorporate, at a minimum: (a) a side wrapper; 12 (b) a base; and (c) a drive hub; 13 and (4) any combination of the foregoing parts or subassemblies.

Excluded from the scope are stacked washer-dryers and commercial washers. The term “stacked washer-dryers” denotes distinct washing and drying machines that are built on a unitary frame and share a common console that controls both the washer and the dryer. The term “commercial washer” denotes an automatic clothes washing machine designed for the “pay per use” segment . . .

While the physical characteristics of certain OTR tires will vary depending on·the specific applications and conditions for which the tires are designed (e.g., tread pattern and depth), all of the tires within the scope have in common that they are designed for off-road and off-highway use.

Except as discussed below, OTR tires included in the scope of the proceeding range in size (rim diameter) generally but not exclusively from 8 inches to 54 inches. The tires may be either tube-type40 or tubeless, radial or non-radial, and intended for sale either to original equipment manufacturers or the replacement market.

Certain OTR tires, whether or not attached to wheels or rims, are included in the scope. However, if a subject tire is imported attached to a wheel or rim, only the tire is covered by the scope. Subject merchandise includes certain OTR tires produced in the subject countries whether attached to wheels or rims in a subject country or in a third country. . . .

This is the second antidumping and countervailing duty case the USW has filed against off-the-road tires from China. The USW stated that un-mounted off-the-road tires from China are already covered by antidumping and countervailing duty orders, but that mounted tires from China are not subject to those duties. Thus, this second case has been brought to close the loophole.

For those US import companies that imported Calcium Hypochlorite, Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod, Crepe Paper Products, Ferrovanadium, Folding Gift Boxes, Potassium Permanganate, and Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China during the antidumping period January 1, 2015-December 31, 2015 or if this is the First Review Investigation, for imports imported after the Commerce Department preliminary determinations in the initial investigation, the end of this month is a very important deadline. Requests have to be filed at the Commerce Department by the Chinese suppliers, the US importers and US industry by the end of this month to participate in the administrative review.

This is a very important month for US importers because administrative reviews determine how much US importers actually owe in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty cases. Generally, the US industry will request a review of all Chinese companies. If a Chinese company does not respond in the Commerce Department’s Administrative Review, its antidumping and countervailing duty rate could well go to the highest level and for certain imports the US importer will be retroactively liable for the difference plus interest.

In my experience, many US importers do not realize the significance of the administrative review investigations. They think the antidumping and countervailing duty case is over because the initial investigation is over. Many importers are blindsided because their Chinese supplier did not respond in the administrative review, and the US importers find themselves liable for millions of dollars in retroactive liability. In the recent Solar Cells 2012-2013 final review determination, for example, the following Chinese companies were determined to no longer be eligible for a separate antidumping rate and to have the PRC antidumping rate of 298:

On December 1, 2015 the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that Dorsey’s client, OBB Personenverkehr AG (“OBB”), the national railway of the Republic of Austria, is entitled to foreign sovereign immunity in a lawsuit filed against it in federal court by a United States resident who was injured while boarding OBB’s train in Innsbruck, Austria.

The decision, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, has broad application and is significant in confirming that there are limits to the reach of American courts. It establishes that, in the commercial context, in order for a United States court to exercise jurisdiction over a foreign state, or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state, the claims must be “based upon” commercial activity that occurred within the territorial limits of the United States. In reversing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court rejected the notion that a foreign state-owned railway could be sued in the United States, simply based upon the purchase of a Eurail pass on the Internet from a United State travel agency, curtailing the impact of the Internet on the jurisdictional reach of United States courts. Instead, the Supreme Court held that courts must focus on what is “the ‘particular conduct’ that constitutes the ‘gravamen’ of the suit,” or its “essentials,” which here, was the accident that took place in Austria. In this case, the injured passenger could have sued in Austria instead, which forum afforded adequate legal remedies.

Dorsey lawyer Juan Basombrio, who argued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of OBB, notes that the decision is significant from an international business and legal perspective: “Whereas the Ninth Circuit’s decision would have dragged foreign states and their agencies into United States court, the Supreme Court’s decision recognizes the importance of international comity; that is, the respect that nations afford to the courts of other nations with respect to matters that occur within their territory.”

Juan further notes that, “In a world that has become increasingly connected by international commercial transactions, and where there is also increasing friction in the relations between the United States and other nations, this is a seminal and important decision that will foster harmony between the United States and other nations at least in the commercial context.” Juan explains that, “From the perspective of American business, this decision also will incentivize other nations to adopt similar rulings, which will protect American businesses from being dragged into court overseas.”

Finally, “The unanimous decision of the Supreme Court,” according to Juan, “also underscores that the Supreme Court is not a fractured Court, as it has been recently criticized, but instead can and has spoken with one voice in this important area of the law, which involves the foreign relations of the United States.”

Dorsey represented OBB at all stages of the litigation. Juan was lead counsel on the case from the trial court through the Supreme Court argument.

UKRAINE ATTACKS RUSSIA USING ARBITRATION

Ukrainian companies have initiated five arbitration proceedings against Russia that range from approximately $20 million to $1 billion. The cases have been brought by a number of Ukrainian businesses including Ukraine’s largest bank, a real estate investment company, several petrol stations and a private airport.

The claims have been brought under a 1998 bilateral investment treaty meant to encourage economic cooperation and expansion between Ukraine and Russia and are to recover for alleged losses incurred after Russian troops invaded Crimea in 2014 and shut down or nationalized Ukrainian businesses without paying for them.

The claims were lodged at various times in the first half of 2015 in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, an intergovernmental organization with approximately 115 member states. The parties that launched the claims include PrivatBank & Finance Co. Finilon LLC, or PrivatBank; and PJSC Ukrnafta, which is both publicly and privately owned and is one of Ukraine’s largest oil and gas companies.

The lawyer representing the Ukrainian companies stated:

Apparently, the bilateral investment treaty permits the investors of one country whose property has been appropriated by the other country to launch private arbitration proceedings either under the rules governing the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce or the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.

IP/PATENT AND 337 CASES

337

On November 10, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) in the attached Clear Correct v. ITC, CLEAR CORRECT V ITC, held that the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) does not have the authority to expand the scope of Section 337 Intellectual property (“IP”) investigations to cover electronic transmissions of digital data imported into the United States. In a 2-1 decision, the Court determined that such an expansion would:

run counter to the “unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” . . . . Here, it is clear that “articles” means “material things,” whether when looking to the literal text or when read in context “with a view to [the term’s] place in the overall statutory scheme.” . . . . We recognize, of course, that electronic transmissions have some physical properties—for example an electron’s invariant mass is a known quantity—but common sense dictates that there is a fundamental difference between electronic transmissions and “material things.” . . .

On January 5th, in U.S. v. Pangang Group Co. Ltd., the US government brought the attached criminal indictment, CHINA INDICTMENT, against Pangang Group Co. Ltd., a state-owned Chinese steel company, alleging that Pangang engaged in economic spying and stole manufacturing trade secrets from DuPont Co. through a California businessman and a former DuPont engineer, who have been sent to prison for their crimes.

Prosecutors claim Pangang stole trade secrets held by DuPont covering its proprietary method of manufacturing titanium dioxide, which is used to make cars, paper and other items appear whiter.

NEW PATENT AND TRADEMARK COMPLAINTS AGAINST CHINESE, HONG KONG AND TAIWAN COMPANIES

In early January 2016, T&D also sent us the latest attached draft translated into English of IPR Anti-monopoly Guideline from the National Development and Reform Commission of China (NDRC) released on the last day of 2015, i.e. December 31, 2015. IPR Guideline (draft) 20151231-EN

SECURITIES

FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

Recently, Dorsey& Whitney LLP issued its attached December 2015 Anti-Corruption Digest,AntiCorruptionDigestDec2015. The Digest states with regards to China:

China: Setback in the Anti-Corruption Campaign

It has been reported that President Xi Jinping’s ongoing anti-corruption campaign has suffered a setback after a prominent official of the inspection team in charge of the government’s anti-corruption efforts, Liu Xiangdong, was removed from his post after allegedly being in possession of more than $31 million (£20 million) in cash.

Mr. Liu was accused of “violating inspection rules and leaking related secrets” and accepting large bribes. He was also stripped of his Communist Party membership and removed from his position, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, the party’s top anti- corruption committee, said in a statement on its website.

China: Corruption in the Education Sector

China’s anti-corruption campaign has already touched many of the country’s sectors and has now extended to the education sector with a number of officials at the Communication University of China being targeted.

The president of the university, Su Wuzhi, was reportedly removed from his post for having an office that was “severely beyond the official standards, using university funds to hold banquets in public venues and putting gifts sent to the university on display in his own office without registering them.”

Lv Zhisheng, the vice president of the university, was also removed from office for allegedly failing to enforce frugality rules, leading to “chaos in financial management” of the institution, such as expenditures in “fancy cars” which exceeded budgets.

An official announcement from the Education Ministry is said to have called for increased monitoring of the education sector to ensure that “the high aims” of the party were upheld.

SECURITIES COMPLAINTS

On November 24, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed an insider trading case against two Chinese individuals, Yue Han and Wei Han, who presently reside in China. SEC VERSUS HAN

On November 24, 2015, Amy Liu and a number of individuals filed a class action securities case for fraud against China North East Petroleum Holdings Ltd. (“CNEP”). Defendant CNEP is a Nevada corporation with its sole asset being ownership of Song Yrun North East Petroleum Technical Services Co., Ltd, a subsidiary operating in China. On September 5, 2013 CNEP transferred all CNEP assets and all CNEP liabilities to Ju Guizhi, a CNEP director and mother of CNEP CEO Wang Hongiun, for the purpose of effecting a merger into CLP Huaxing Equity Changchun City Investment Limited (“CLP”), a limited liability chinese corporation majority owned and controlled by Ju Guizhi and Wang Hongiun, NEVEDA SHAREHOLDERS SUIT.

On December 10, 2015, Shouming Zhang, a Chinese individual, filed the attached fraud case against several US companies and a Chinese individual alleging three Los Angeles-area companies and an attorney of swindling her into investing in an $8 million business deal with promises that she would obtain an EB-5 visa, CHINA NATIONAL COMPLAINT EB5.

Shoumin Zhang — whose visa application was denied — accuses Arcadia, California-based Americana One LLC of committing fraud and breach of contract by luring her into paying $500,000 for the supposed renovation of a commercial building. Zhang says that after she discovered the $8 million investment was a fraud, she visited the U.S. to personally ask AFRC and Americana One to seek a refund of her money.

Through the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program, the U.S. government offers EB-5 visas to foreigners who make certain business investments in the country. A website for AFRC offers consultations for the program, which allegedly requires only $500,000 of investment in exchange for permanent resident status in the U.S.

If you have any questions about these cases or about the US trade policy, trade adjustment assistance, customs, 337, patent, US/China antitrust or securities law in general, please feel free to contact me.

Attached is the first half of the December blog post, which covers the collateral damage caused by US Antidumping Orders on downstream US production by the numerous antidumping orders against raw material inputs from China, which directly damage and in some cases destroy downstream US production. The Article describes why the Import Alliance is so important to counter this trend.

The second article is on the Triumph and Tragedy of Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies, the only truly successful trade remedy the US government has in its arsenal to help US companies injured by imports.

This update goes into detail on the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) and when it might come up for a vote in Congress, the impact of Presidential politics, especially against Donald Trump, on the TPP, the ITC TPP investigation and the appointment of Congressman Dave Reichert of Washington State as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, House Ways and Means Committee.

Finally, on December 9th, Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means announced Agreement on the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. Copies of the Bipartisan bill and Conference Report are attached below.

If anyone has any questions or wants additional information, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE IMPORT ALLIANCE FOR US MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTION—THE DAMAGE ANTIDUMPING CASES CAUSE TO DOWNSTREAM AND UPSTREAM PRODUCERS

US Law firms representing domestic producers in antidumping (“AD”) cases like to grab the mantle of helping US producers stay in business and saving US jobs. They do not want Congress or the general public to look at the collateral damage created by US AD orders against China on downstream US production. In truth, US AD cases against China have destroyed more jobs than they have saved.

All AD orders can do is delay the decline of the US industry, they cannot save the companies. But in delaying the decline, these same AD orders destroy downstream value added production, where the US is often among the most efficient producers in the World.

These points were made by importers in the Import Alliance at meetings with Congressional Trade Staff and a Congressman on Capitol Hill on November 18th in Washington DC. The Import Alliance has four objectives. The first two objectives are:

(1) Eliminate retroactive liability for US importers and join the rest of the World in making antidumping and countervailing duty orders prospective.

(2) Work for market economy treatment for China in 2016 as provided in the US China WTO Agreement for the benefit of US importers and downstream companies.

As of November 17, 2015, as the US International Trade Commission (“ITC”) states in the attached list, NOVEMBER 172015 AD CVD ORDERS, there are 128 outstanding antidumping and countervailing duty orders against China. More than 70 of those Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders are against raw material inputs, chemicals, metals and steel, that go into downstream US production.

The outstanding chemical AD and countervailing duty (“CVD”) orders against China cover imported products such as polyvinyl alcohol used to produce adhesives and polyvinyl buturyl for auto safety glass. Another product is sulfanilic acid used to provide Optical Brighteners in the US Dye Industry, which, in turn, resulted in the antidumping order against Stilbenic optical brightening agents. Other chemicals covered by AD and CVD orders are potassium permanganate in place since 1984 used to purify water, potassium permanganate salts, chloropicrin, barium chloride, glycine used to produce the cooling effect in candies, furfural alcohol, persulfates, barium carbonate, Tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol, Carbazole violet pigment 23, chlorinated isocyanurates used in swimming pool chemicals, certain activated carbon used to purify various chemicals and to produce products used in nuclear plants, certain polyester staple fiber, sodium hexametaphosphate, sodium nitrite, citric acid, xanthan gum, monosodium glutamate, calcium hypochlorite and melamine.

Often these AD and CVD orders cover products that are not even produced in the United States. Because of this situation, many US producers dependent on the raw materials simply close US production and move overseas.

The following Chinese metal products are covered by AD and countervailing duty (“CVD”) orders: magnesium ingots, magnesium, and pure magnesium, magnesium carbon bricks used in downstream magnesium dye casting industry and to produce light weight auto parts. All light weight auto part production has moved to Canada and Mexico because of the antidumping orders on Chinese magnesium. Other Chinese metal products covered by antidumping and countervailing duty orders are silicon metal critical for use in US foundries, silicomanganese, foundry coke, ferrovanadium, and graphite electrodes used in the steel industry and downstream metal production, aluminum extrusions, the order has been expanded to cover many downstream products produced from aluminum extrusions, including curtain walls/sides of buildings, lighting equipment, geodesic domes, refrigerator handles, and subcomponent auto parts, electrolytic magnesium dioxide used to produce batteries, which, in part, led to the closure of Panasonic’s battery plant in the US, and refined brown aluminum oxide.

The Magnesium antidumping order, in particular, has led to enormous job loss in the downstream industries. The Magnesium AD order protects one company in Utah and between 200 to 400 jobs by wiping out thousands, if not tens of thousands of jobs in the downstream industries.

In 2004-2005 43 US companies sold magnesium die castings in the US market. As of two to three years ago, according to National Association of Dye Casters (“NADCA”), less than 12 US companies now produce magnesium die castings in the United States. NADCA estimates that 31 US companies have ceased pouring magnesium in the United States because of the antidumping order against magnesium from China. US companies, such as Lunt in Illinois, simply went out of business because of the Magnesium from China Antidumping order. In 2010, when NADCA did the survey, it estimated a job loss of 1,675 direct jobs. Now the jobs loss has swelled to over 2,000 and closer to 10,000 supporting jobs.

Where did the magnesium jobs and companies go? Many companies and projects simply moved to Mexico or Canada. Magnesium is used to produce light weight auto parts. Many OEM magnesium parts manufacturers moved all their production to Mexico. Five Tier 1 steering wheel manufacturers, for example, have magnesium die casting and wheel assembly plants in Mexico, including TRW, AutoLiv, Takata, Key Safety Systems and Neaton. GM intends to import Buick cars from China into the US. Could the Magnesium AD order be one of the reasons?

As one person working in the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Companies program remarked to me, the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty orders against Steel explain why so many companies in the TAA program use steel as an input.

If these Chinese products were truly dumped, then AD orders should be issued. Since Commerce considers China a nonmarket economy country (“NME”) and refuses to use actual prices and costs in China to determine dumping, however, it does not know whether the products are dumped. For more discussion of the 2016 China NME problem, see my last blog post and the dumping canard argument and many other prior posts and my next newsletter.

Congressmen may not care that retail products go up several dollars because of AD orders, but what happens when the AD orders in place injure downstream US producers, sometimes literally closing the companies down and destroying downstream jobs. Does that make a difference to Congress?

Also the AD and CVD orders on Solar Cells and Solar Products has led to problems for REC Silicon in Moses Lake, Washington, which produces the upstream product, polysilicon, used to produce solar cells. China has retaliated against the United States producers by bringing its own AD and CVD cases against the United States for US exports of polysilicon, wiping out the US polysilicon from the China market. As stated in the last blog post, REC Silicon has deferred a $1 billion investment and possibly could close its plant in Moses Lake.

Because of the impact of AD and CVD orders on downstream US production, the Import Alliance has two other objectives:

(3) End user production companies should have standing in antidumping and countervailing duty cases.

(4) The United States should join the rest of the World in antidumping and countervailing duty cases, including Canada, the EC and yes China, and have a public interest test.

This is also why the Import Alliance for America is so important for US importers and US end user companies. The real targets of antidumping and countervailing duty laws are not Chinese companies. The real targets are US companies, which import products into the United States from China or use raw materials in downstream production process.

As mentioned in prior blog posts, we are working with APCO, a well-known lobbying/government relations firm in Washington DC, on establishing a US importers/end users lobbying coalition to lobby against the expansion of US China Trade War and the AD and CVD laws against China for the benefit of US companies.

Ten US Importers have agreed to form the Import Alliance for America. On November 18th, Importers in the Alliance met with a Congressman and Congressional Trade Staff in Washington DC in the first of several meetings to educate the US Congress and Administration on the damaging effects of the US China trade war, especially US AD and CVD laws, on US importers and US downstream industries. For more information, see the Import Alliance website at http://www.importallianceforamerica.com.

THE TRIUMPH AND TRAGEDY OF TAA FOR FIRMS/COMPANIES

But what is the answer to this import problem? What is the answer for US companies caught in the cross hairs of import competition from China and many other countries and facing potential bankruptcy?

Not more protection. Antidumping and countervailing duty cases cannot be brought against the World. As stated in many past blog posts, all antidumping and countervailing duty cases do is slow the decline in the US industry, not cure the disease. A great example of this is the US Steel Industry and the demise of such well-known steel companies as Bethlehem Steel, Lone Star Steel and Jones and Laughlin. Many of these companies have simply ceased to exist despite 40 years of protection from steel imports under the US antidumping and countervailing duty laws.

Instead, I firmly believe the answer lies in the small program—the TAA for Companies (also called TAA for Firms) (“TAAF”). The Triumph of TAAF is that it has been reauthorized for 5 years. The tragedy is that its budget has again been cut to $12.5 million nation-wide.

TAA for Companies (TAAF) is probably the most effective trade remedy the United States has in its arsenal, but it is not given the resources it needs to do the job. I believe in this program and sit on the board of the Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, the regional office in the Northwest that administers the program. Since 1984, NWTAAC has been able to save 80% of the injured companies that got into the program. For more information see www.nwtaac.org. The big news is that TAAF nationwide recently had a great validation and, at the same time, a bewildering set back.

In case you don’t know about TAAF, this is a program that offers a one-time, highly targeted benefit to domestic companies hurt by trade. The benefit is not paid to the companies, but to consultants, who help the company adjust to import competition. The program is amazingly effective. Between 2010 and 2014, 896 companies with more than 90,000 employees were certified as trade impacted by TAAF after experiencing a 16% drop in sales and 17% drop in jobs. During this 5 year period, participating companies in TAAF increased average sales by 40% and employment by 20%, achieving impressive double-digit productivity gains. Essentially, all of the 15,090 jobs lost to imports before company participation in the TAAF program were regained by creating more than 15,140 new jobs by the end of the five year period, and 75,000 jobs were retained by helping these companies stay in business. These impressive results occurred with TAAF program annual costs of approximately $15.3 million per year.

To put that in context, the very much larger TAA for Worker Program’s appropriation for FY 2015 was $711 million. The TAA for Worker (TAAW) Program spends roughly $53,000 per year to retrain a single employee AFTER a job has been lost due to trade. The mission for each program is very different – TAAF’s primary mission is to save the company AND the jobs, while TAAW’s mission is to retrain workers after the jobs have already been lost. Now you should ask which is the smarter investment?

Arguments are made that TAAF costs the US government money. When a company adjusts to trade and survives or even prospers, that company and all of its workers pay taxes. The taxes on average wages for about 8,300 jobs would pay for this whole program. Companies in the TAAF program, however, regained 15,000 jobs and retained 75,000 jobs. The real costs to government, however, are when companies don’t survive and good jobs are lost.

In fact, the TAAF program actually saves the US government millions of dollars each year by helping companies stay in business while saving their higher paying manufacturing jobs. For every job saved, resources aren’t wasted on expensive training and other costly benefits, but can instead be used more productively to help trade impacted firms adapt to changes in the global economy as large FTA’s like the upcoming TPP are implemented.

An example using the TAAF program statistics from above describes what happens when TAAF program resources are cut. If workers applied for benefits through the TAA for Workers (TAAW) Program for the 15,000 jobs lost due to imports, it would cost more than $795 million to retrain them using the $53,000 average cost figure. The TAAF program not only saves the company but saves the high paying jobs that go with that company, and keeps tax revenues rolling in to contribute to local and national tax bases rather than acting as a cost burden.

The more stunning fact – if the TAAF program saves just 300 jobs per year on a national basis for which TAA for Worker resources of $53,000 aren’t required for retraining efforts, the program easily pays for itself up to its $16 million authorization level. That is an extremely low bar to set considering that TAAF retained more than 75,000 jobs and created an additional 15,140 jobs during the last five year period. This shows the short sightedness in cutting the program.

For more information, see the TAA video from Mid-Atlantic TAAC at http://mataac.org/howitworks/ , which describes in detail how four import injured companies used the program to change and turn their company around and make it profitable. One of the companies was using steel as an input, and was getting smashed by Chinese imports. After getting into the program, not only did the company become prosperous and profitable, it is now exporting products to China. This is the transformative power of TAA for Companies.

Amazingly, TAAF came into being over 40 years ago, before “globalization” was even a word. On the eve of TPP – it’s never been so relevant. The idea then, and now, is that changes in trade circumstances (often sudden and unpredictable) put U.S. companies and jobs in jeopardy. In other word, government action through trade agreements, such as the TPP, change the US market and the market conditions under which companies operate in the United States. Since government action through the trade agreement has changed the US market, I believe the US government has an obligation to help US companies adapt to the changing US market.

Global trade has evolved over the past 40 years and perhaps it’s time for trade policy to adapt to those changes. The original mission for TAA was more concerned with the impact of increased imports on US workers, and the vast majority of funds have been dedicated to the TAA for Workers program. The landscape has changed as more than 5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last 40 years, and the mission for TAA must now shift to maintaining a robust core of manufacturing companies and jobs. Without a vibrant core of manufacturing firms, the US won’t have the capacity or capabilities to achieve growth through export expansion no matter how many free trade agreements are passed, and all the training in the world is not going to bring back those manufacturing jobs.

Earlier this summer, as explained in detail in past blog posts, Trade, including Trade Promotion Authority (“TPA”) and TAA were the hot topics on Capitol Hill. During this process Congress authorized the TAA program for five years – a length of time and expression of confidence that nobody expected. The series of events in the Congress were highly dramatic – it was a breakthrough in bipartisanship.

Many Senators and House Representatives played a significant role in pushing the trade legislation, including TAA, through Congress. The Senators included Republicans Mitch McConnell and Orrin Hatch and Democrats Ron Wyden, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. In the House, Republican Representatives, including Paul Ryan, Dave Reichert, and Jaime Herrera Beutler, voted for the TAA program along with over 90 other Republicans. Democratic Representatives, including Suzanne Bonamici and many from the New Dem Coalition, such as Representatives Ron Kind, Derek Kilmer, Rick Larson, and Suzan DelBene, helped push the TAA and TPA legislation through Congress.

But, in the very next breath Congress cut the program’s appropriations to $12.5 Million. That’s $12.5 Million for the entire country – an investment of only $250,000 per state to help trade impacted manufacturing companies.

A couple of points to make here:

At $12.5M, TAAF will be able to serve less than 1 in 1,000 companies injured by import competition. Does anyone truly believe that import competition is seriously affecting less than one in 1,000 companies, especially with the coming passage of the TPP?

The inequity of funding for TAA programs must be addressed – FY 2015 appropriations for TAA for Workers was $711 million; TAA for Companies was $15 million. Both programs play an important role in trade policy, but does it make sense to use the vast majority of funds for retraining efforts after jobs have been lost? Or, should more of the funding be dedicated to saving both companies and jobs through the TAAF program?

As indicated below, the Labor Advisory Committee to the TPP, which is composed of Unions, estimates that TPP could cost the United States up to 330,000 jobs in the Manufacturing Sector. Although this may be too pessimistic, the TPP will create losers, companies that do not do as well, and without a robust TAAF program how can those companies and jobs be saved?

TAAF has been evaluated repeatedly by GAO, CRS, and various outside evaluators, which conclude that instead of dying, TAAF companies have a 6% annual growth rate. That’s after an at least 5% decline year on year (the threshold for entering the program), which is an impressive turn-around for distressed companies. TAAF has proven its worth, and the basic model is the most effective trade remedy that works in the 21st century. Moreover, the TAAF solution does not change the US market or create the collateral damage associated with US antidumping and countervailing duty cases. Instead, it teaches the company how to change, adapt and swim in the new market conditions caused by imports.

More importantly, TAAF changes the mindset of the injured companies away from Globalization victimhood to being competitive in the international market. One Economic Development Council here in Washington State has the motto Compete Every Day, with Every One in Every Country Forever. That is the type of mindset that turns companies around. That is the type of mindset TAA for Companies promotes.

TPP TEXT AND TRADE ADVISORY REPORTS

On November 5, 2015, the United States Trade Representative Office (“USTR”) released the text of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (“TPP”). This is an enormous trade agreement covering 12 countries, including the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, and covers 40% of the World’s economy. To read more about the TPP and the political negotiations behind the Agreement see past blog posts on this site.

The text of the Agreement is over 6,000 pages. We have downloaded the text of the various Chapters, which are listed below. We have broken the Agreement down into three parts and have added consecutive page numbers to the Agreement in the right hand lower corner to make the Agreement easier to navigate.

Almost all of the reports are favorable, except for the Steel Report, which takes no position, and the Labor Advisory Report, which is opposed because it is the position of the Unions. Some of the relevant reports for various industries are as follows:

For Agriculture, see Agriculture Policy Advisory Committee, Animals and Animal Product, Fruits and Vegetables, Grains and Processed Foods. See also Standards and Technical Barriers to Trade. For Pharmaceuticals and Health Care, see Chemicals and Health Science products, plus Services. For Banking see financial and services. For Energy and Mining, see Energy and Energy Services plus Non-Ferrous Metals. For Intellectual Property, see IP Report and Information and Communications Technologies. For Telecom, see Communication Technologies and also Standards. For Environmental, see Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee. For Customs and Trade, see Customs and Trade Facilitation.

TO TPP OR NOT TO TPP THAT IS THE QUESTION

On October 5th, in Atlanta Trade ministers from the U.S. and 11 other nations, including Japan, Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Peru, Chile, Brunei, Singapore, Vietnam and Malaysia, reached an agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (“TPP”), which will link up 40 percent of the world’s economy. Some of the key issues in the TPP are:

Cut Tariffs on 18,000 products

New special 2 year safeguard for certain domestic industries that face a surge in imports

State-owned companies with TPP Countries must conduct commercial activities in accordance with market- based considerations

Vietnam must allow formation of independent labor unions

Malaysia will face trade retaliation if it does not improve its forced labor and human trafficking record

Bar countries from requiring the localized storage of data or surrender valuable source codes as condition of market entry

Require parties to commit to sustainable forest management and conserve at risk plants and animals.

On November 5, 2015, the United States Trade Representative Office (“USTR”) released the text and appendices of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, which are over 6,000 pages long and are attached above. The clock has started to run, which means President Obama could technically sign the Agreement 60 days later or on February 3rd,. Potentially Congress could take up the bill 30 to 90 days later.

But the big question is when will Congress take up the Agreement and can it be ratified. Two weeks ago on Capitol Hill in discussions with legislative trade staff, they said the TPP has to start from the House of Representatives. So that means that Paul Ryan, the new Speaker of the House, will probably have the final say, along with Senators McConnell and Hatch.

The new Chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, House Ways and Means, Congressman Dave Reichert, stated recently that a House floor vote on TPP could be possible in late spring or early summer. Given the timeline established by TPA requirements, the President will be able to sign TPP Feb. 3 and then send the implementing legislation to Congress after March 4. Chairman Reichert stated that Congress would have 90 days to consider the agreement, but he would rather not see the House vote pushed into the end of July, adding that it would be possible for the pact to enter into force by January 2017. Congressman Reichert expressed confidence that sufficient votes would be there to meet the simple majority threshold required under TPA, but he acknowledged that votes on trade agreements are always close. See article below on the appointment of Congressman Dave Reichert of Washington State to the Chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Trade, House Ways and Means.

As Chairman Reichert further stated, “We’re probably looking somewhere around the May time frame—we’re thinking late spring, early summer.” But he also indicated that there were many issues to be discussed before scheduling the vote.

In talking to a number of Congressional Trade Staff two weeks ago, they still have not read the entire 5,000 plus pages of the Agreement and digested it enough to know what is in it.

Reichert also stressed that the timing of any vote would be a leadership decision, stating:

We’re taking a measured approach, we’re studying the document and we’re working with other members of Congress and talking with our constituents to see where the troubles might exist for them on a particular product and also working closely with the ambassador [U.S. Trade Representative] Mike Froman.

Reichert also indicated that the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) report on the impact of the TPP agreement on the U.S. economy, which is due by May 18, would also have an impact on the vote.

Reichert further stated:

We are in study mode and talking with members who have issues and concerns about some of the language in TPP. We’re just going to be moving forward, talking with constituents, talking with members, finding ways we can address these concerns.

Two notable areas of concern are the intellectual property rights protections for pharmaceutical drugs and the carve-out of tobacco from investor state dispute settlement. The TPP has only 5 years of protection for biologic drugs when the Pharmaceutical companies wanted 12 years.

Reichert further stated, “If we lose some votes [because of the tobacco issue], we’ll have to work on our Democrat friends to pull through and support the effort to recover those losses”

As one Republican Trade Staffer, who is very close to the decision-making, told me, “We honestly do not know when the TPP will come up.” The staffer went on to state that before the Agreement was finalized, USTR would state that “Substance drives the timeline.” As the Staffer further stated, now “Addressing members’ [Congressional representatives’] concerns sets the timeline.”

One Democratic trade staffer in the Senate stated that he believes that the Presidential election will have an impact on the timing of a TPP vote in the Congress. If the TPP is looked upon as a positive by the US electorate, the Republicans may want to keep the issue on the table to use against Hilary Clinton in the election. But if the TPP is looked upon as a negative, Congressional Republicans may want the vote to take place in Spring or Summer 2016 to take it off the table in the Presidential election.

Senate Republican trade staffers made the same point to me, “Maybe there will be no vote on TPP in 2016.”

Any issue this big coming up in a Presidential election year is by its very nature political so President politics will have an impact. As indicated below, however, Presidential politics cuts several ways. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders is adamantly against the TPP and Hilary Clinton has said she is opposed because she wants the union votes. On the Republican side, all the candidates, except Donald Trump, are in favor of the TPP, but Trump adamantly opposes it.

PRESIDENT OBAMA PUSHES FOR TPP

On November 10, 2015, President Obama made his case for the TPP on Bloombergview.com:

A Trade Deal for Working Families

By Barack Obama

As President, my top priority is to grow our economy and strengthen the middle class. When I took office, America was in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression — but thanks to the hard work and resilience of the American people, our businesses have created 13.5 million jobs over the past 68 months, the longest streak of private-sector job creation in history. The unemployment rate has been cut nearly in half — lower than it’s been in more than seven years. We have come back further and faster from recession than nearly every other advanced nation on Earth.

That’s real progress. But as any middle-class family will tell you, we have more to do. That’s why I believe the Trans-Pacific Partnership is so important. It’s a trade deal that helps working families get ahead.

At a time when 95 percent of our potential customers live outside our borders, this agreement will open up new markets to made-in-America goods and services. Today, exports support 11.7 million American jobs. Companies that sell their goods around the world tend to grow faster, hire more employees and pay higher salaries than companies that don’t. On average, export-supported jobs pay up to 18 percent more than other jobs.

These are good jobs — and this agreement will lead to even more of them. It would eliminate more than 18,000 taxes that various countries put on made-in-America products. For instance, last year, we exported $89 billion in automotive products alone to TPP countries, many of which have soaring tariffs — more than 70 percent in some cases — on made-in-America products. Our farmers and ranchers, whose exports account for roughly 20 percent of all farm income, face similarly high tariffs. Thanks to the TPP, those taxes will drop drastically, most of them to zero. That means more U.S. exports supporting more higher-paying American jobs.

At a time when our workers too often face an unfair playing field, this agreement also includes the highest labor standards of any trade deal in history. Provisions protecting worker safety and prohibiting child labor make sure that businesses abroad play by the same kinds of rules we have here at home. Provisions protecting the environment and combating wildlife trafficking make sure that economic growth doesn’t come at the expense of the only planet we call home.

And these commitments are enforceable –meaning we can hold other countries accountable through trade sanctions if they don’t follow through. So, these tough new rules level the playing field, and when American workers have a fair chance to compete, I believe they’ll win every time.

I’ve said many times that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is the right thing for our economy, for working Americans and for our middle class. But I’m not asking you to take my word for it. Instead, I’ve posted the agreement online. If you build cars in places such as Detroit, you can see for yourself how your products will have a better shot of hitting the road in places such as Japan. If you’re a farmer or rancher, you’ll see how your products will face fewer barriers abroad. If you’re a small-business owner, you’ll see how this agreement will mean less paperwork and less red tape.

Along with the text of the agreement, we’ve posted detailed materials to help explain it. It’s an unprecedented degree of transparency — and it’s the right thing to do. Not every American will support this deal, and neither will every member of Congress. But I believe that in the end, the American people will see that it is a win for our workers, our businesses and our middle class. And I expect that, after the American people and Congress have an opportunity for months of careful review and consultation, Congress will approve it, and I’ll have the chance to sign it into law.

Together, we’ve overcome enormous obstacles over the past seven years. We’ve taken an economy that was in free fall and returned it to steady growth and job creation. And we’ve put ourselves in a position to restore America’s promise not only now, but for decades to come. That’s what I believe this agreement will help us do.

UNIONS PUSH AGAINST IT

On December 4th, Union leaders from the United Steelworkers, United Mine Workers of America and the Service Employees International Union, who sit on the president’s Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy, came out against the TPP in the report released by USTR, arguing that although the TPP creates some limited opportunities for increased exports, it will also increase trade deficits in several industries — such as auto, aerospace, textiles and call centers — and will kill US jobs. As the Union members on the Labor Advisory Committee state in the attached report, Labor-Advisory-Committee-for-Trade-Negotiations-and-Trade-Policy:

The LAC strongly opposes the TPP, negotiated between the United States (U.S.), Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. We believe that the Agreement fails to advance the economic interests of the U.S. and does not fulfill all of the negotiating objectives identified by Congress in the Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015. The threat to future economic gains here in the U.S. and the standard of living of our people will be put in jeopardy by the Agreement. These threats will grow over time based on the potential for open-ended expansion of the TPP to countries ranging from Indonesia to China.

The LAC report goes on to state:

On behalf of the millions of working people we represent, we believe that the TPP is unbalanced in its provisions, skewing benefits to economic elites while leaving workers to bear the brunt of the TPP’s downside. The TPP is likely to harm the U.S. economy, cost jobs, and lower wages. . . .

The LAC entered the TPP process hopeful and optimistic that the TPP would finally be the agreement that broke the elite stranglehold on trade policy and put working families at the front and center. Unfortunately, we believe the TPP fails to strike the proper balance: of course it is difficult to convince Vietnam to implement freedom of association before the TPP enters into force once Vietnam has already agreed to provisions that will force it to pay higher prices for medicines and subject even its most basic laws to challenge by foreign investors in private tribunals. Given the misguided values enshrined in the TPP, it is no surprise that the economic rules it will impose will actually make it harder to create a virtuous cycle of rising wages and demand in all 12 TPP countries.

While the TPP may create some limited opportunities for increased exports, there is an even larger risk that it will increase our trade deficit, which has been a substantial drag on job growth for more than twenty years. Especially at risk are jobs and wages in the auto, aerospace, aluminum and steel, apparel and textile, call center, and electronic and electrical machinery industries. The failure to address currency misalignment, weak rules of origin and inadequate state-owned enterprise provisions, extraordinary rights provided to foreign investors and pharmaceutical companies, the undermining of Buy American, and the inclusion of a labor framework that has proved itself ineffective are key among the TPP’s mistakes that contribute to our conclusion that the certain risks outweigh the TPP’s speculative and limited benefits. . . .

The LAC urges the President in the strongest possible terms to reverse course now. Do not send this TPP to Congress. Instead, the TPP should go back to the negotiating table. We want to work with you and our counterparts in the other TPP countries to create a truly progressive TPP that uplifts working people, creates wage-led growth, diminishes income inequality, promotes infrastructure investment, protects intellectual property without undermining access to affordable medicines, and respects our democracy. . . .

The LAC went on to state with regards to Manufacturing:

Manufacturing—General

The Trans Pacific Partnership will seriously undermine the future of domestic manufacturing production and employment. As was noted in an initial evaluation of the TPP published in the Wall Street Journal, the combined U.S. trade deficit in manufacturing, including automobiles and auto parts, would increase by $55.8 billion under the TPP. Utilizing the conservative estimate of the Department of Commerce that each $1 billion in trade correlates to 6,000 jobs, the TPP will cost, at a minimum, 330,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector. That estimate does not include the indirect cost in terms of jobs or on wages and living conditions of all the primary and secondary workers who will be negatively affected by the agreement. Indeed, we believe that the job loss potential of the TPP is much higher.

The report is one of 27 from various advisory committees on trade policy, environment and industries released by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on December 4th, many of which backed the TPP.

Meanwhile on December 4, 2015, the United Auto Workers (“UAW”) called on Congress to reject the TPP, stating that the agreement threatens domestic manufacturing jobs. The international executive board of the UAW, one of North America’s largest unions with more than 750 locals, unanimously voted against the TPP, saying the deal repeats many of the same mistakes as other free trade deals before it, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, that led to stagnant wages, rising income inequality and plant closings in the U.S.

On November 10, 2015, the Blue Green Alliance, a coalition of labor and environmental groups, continued to attack the TPP as a threat to U.S. jobs and climate change policies. Members of the Alliance include the AFL-CIO, the Sierra Club and the United Steelworkers, each of which has taken a leading role in steering the fight to defeat the TPP. Although the Union attacks are well-known, the Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune aimed his attack at the TPP’s investor state dispute settlement mechanism, which he claimed will give corporations even more power to challenge governments’ air, water and climate protection rules.

Meanwhile, trade issues and the TPP have been the subject of Presidential politics, with George Melloan writing an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal on November 3, 2015 comparing Donald Trump to Herbert Hoover and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff:

Donald Trump, Meet Herbert Hoover

Today’s ardent foe of free trade has a soul mate in the president who signed Smoot-Hawley into law. Donald Trump sees unpredictability as a virtue, so one can only guess what his policies would be if he makes it to the Oval Office. Yet because he continues to lead the Republican pack with the election only a year away, maybe it’s time to make some guesses. Those guesses may or may not be well-informed by Mr. Trump’s incessant monologues. But if he is taken at his word, he is one of the most ardent opponents of free trade ever to seek high office in the U.S.

Mr. Trump rants that as President he would punish Ford Motor Co. for building a plant in Mexico by slapping a 35% tariff on Ford cars and parts imported from that plant. China and Japan are trade enemies and he would fix their wagons, too, by putting trade negotiations with them in the hands of wheeler-dealer Carl Icahn. His pugnacious hostility toward trading partners could be brushed off, but opinion polls suggest that what he says has a lot of resonance with the electorate. . . .

The tariff act they [Smoot Hawley] wrote was initially meant to benefit farmers. But after the shock of 1929, industry and labor demanded protection as well.

Both Hoover and the Republican Congress were compliant. In its final form Smoot-Hawley covered some 20,000 items. The average tariff on dutiable goods jumped to 50% from an already high 25%. U.S. trading partners responded in kind and world trade began to shut down. . . .

But on June 17, 1930, Hoover, pressured by his fellow Republicans, signed it anyway.

The rest is history, as they say. The combined effects of declining global trade and New Deal experiments with central planning meant that Americans would suffer a decade of hard times. No Republican would man the Oval Office for another 20 years.

Could such a thing happen today? Probably not, at least not in the same way. It is now widely understood and accepted that the well-being of the American people is predicated on the smooth flow of global trade and capital. Almost every product Americans buy, including homes, is a composite of parts made in many places in the U.S. and abroad.

Apparently the only prominent American who doesn’t understand that is Donald Trump. He seems to think, as did many people 85 years ago to their sorrow, that the mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services across borders is a zero-sum game, indeed a form of warfare.

Some of us have assumed that the hotel and casino tycoon’s populist demagoguery will ultimately blow itself out. But what if it doesn’t?

Levying tariffs on Mexico to pay for a border wall would launch a trade war. . . .

Without the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), manufacturing would be in even worse shape. But don’t tell Donald Trump that. If elected President, he promises to “make America great again” by, among other things, blowing up the 1994 trade pact. . . .

In other words, Mr. Trump plans to launch a trade war with Mexico. This is as preposterous an idea as it is dangerous. Let’s start with the painfully obvious: A tariff is not paid by the exporter but by the importer, who passes it on to the consumer. . . .

It’s hard to see how any of this could be good for Americans. According to “NAFTA Triumphant,” a report last month by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, annual U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico is now $1.3 trillion, nearly four times greater than before the agreement. Agricultural exports to Canada and Mexico have gone up by 350%, and U.S. service exports have tripled. More than a third of U.S. merchandise exports are now bought by Nafta partners.

A trade war would hurt American manufacturing because it would fracture the highly integrated North American economy. All three Nafta partners are competitive globally because they are able to allocate capital to its highest use anywhere on the continent. . . .

A September 2010 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper found that 40% of the content of U.S. imports from Mexico is produced by U.S. workers. . . .

Mr. Trump’s plan also fails from a security perspective. Mexican states that are engaged economically with their northern neighbors are growing faster than the rest of the country. They are also creating good jobs and raising living standards, necessary factors to stem the flow of Mexican migrants north. . . .

Mr. Trump’s trade agenda is absurd and would invite a depression. He’s either too uneducated in economics to know that or too cynical to care.

On November 12, 2015, the Wall Street Journal went after Trump again on trade, commenting on the Republican debate:

Mr. Trump called it a “terrible deal,” though it wasn’t obvious that he has any idea what’s in it. His one specific criticism was its failure to deal with Chinese currency manipulation. But it took Rand Paul to point out that China isn’t part of the deal and would be happy if the agreement collapsed so the U.S. would have less economic influence in Asia.

Mr. Trump said on these pages Tuesday that he would label China a currency manipulator on his first day as President, triggering tariffs on thousands of Chinese goods. The businessman thinks economic mercantilism is a political winner, but we doubt that starting a trade war that raises prices for Americans would turn out to be popular. Many of Mr. Trump’s supporters care more about his take-charge attitude than his policies, but GOP voters will have to decide if they want to nominate their most protectionist nominee since Hoover. . . .

On November 12, 2015 in an Editorial, the Wall Street Journal stated:

Donald Trump Is Upset

The candidate says we were unfair to him on trade. . . .

Mr. Trump: “Yes. Well, the currency manipulation they don’t discuss in the agreement, which is a disaster. If you look at the way China and India and almost everybody takes advantage of the United States—China in particular, because they’re so good. It’s the number-one abuser of this country. And if you look at the way they take advantage, it’s through currency manipulation. It’s not even discussed in the almost 6,000-page agreement. It’s not even discussed.”

So when he is asked about TPP, Mr. Trump’s first reference is to China, which isn’t in TPP, and he now says the world should have known that he knows China isn’t part of it because amid his word salad he said that the deal “was designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door.” .. . .

Our editorial point was what everyone who understands East Asian security knows, which is that China would be delighted to see TPP fail. China is putting together its own Asian trade bloc, and those rules will be written to its advantage. TPP sets a standard for trade under freer Western rules. China could seek to join TPP in the future, but it would have to do so on TPP’s terms, not vice versa.

TPP would help China’s competitors by giving them greater access on better terms to the U.S. market. Production is likely to shift from China to Vietnam and other countries. In October the Financial Times quoted Sheng Laiyun, the spokesman for China’s National Bureau of Statistics, as saying that, “If the TPP agreement is finally implemented, zero tariffs will be imposed on close to 20,000 kinds of products. . . . That will create some pressure on our foreign trade.” Some back door. ***

As for currency manipulation, we gave Mr. Trump a forum for his views in our pages on Tuesday. He doesn’t understand currencies any better than he does TPP. Currency values are largely determined by central banks and capital flows. If China made the yuan convertible and let it float, the initial result would probably be a falling yuan as capital left the country. A trade deal with a binding currency provision could also subject the U.S. Federal Reserve to sanctions as a “manipulator” every time it eased money in a recession.

All of this bears on Mr. Trump’s candidacy because he is running as a shrewd deal-maker who can get the economy moving again. Starting a global currency and trade war “on day one” would get America moving toward recession—or worse.

IMPACT ON NON MEMBER COUNTRIES

USTR Froman in late October stated the TPP has had a “magnetic effect” on outside parties realizing that the TPP stands to set the rules of the road in the coming years, stating:

TPP was designed to be an open platform that will grow over time and help raise standards across the region and around the world. It’s becoming clear that even nonmembers are going to have to compete in a TPP world and raise their game, and that’s good for everybody.

Froman’s statement came one day after Indonesian President Joko Widodo formally expressed interest in joining the TPP because of his fear of being left adrift in the region.

Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Russel said that the TPP strategy has been to raise trade standards and China could eventually be included in:

The world would be a better place, by far, if China were willing to meet the very high standards of TPP. The broader impact on China is going to drive a virtuous cycle of better regulatory practices, greater transparency and openness of the Internet. What TPP brings to the member countries are things that I believe all people, including Chinese people, want.

During a recent TPP conference here in Seattle, a State Department expert on the TPP negotiations stated that the objective of the TPP is not to block or contain China. Instead, the TPP objective is to entangle China in the higher standards and rules set by the TPP. In other words, to join the TPP, China will have to meet the very high standards and rules set by the Agreement, which could go even higher in future negotiations.

On November 18, 2015, at the first meeting between President Barack Obama and his 11 TPP counterparts since the negotiations were completed on Oct. 5, TPP leaders stated:

“While our focus is on approval and implementation of the results of negotiations with our current partners, we have also seen interest from a number of economies throughout the region. This interest affirms that through TPP we are creating a new and compelling model for trade in one of the world’s fastest growing and most dynamic regions.”

ITC TPP INVESTIGATION

In the attached notice, ITC TPP INVESTIGATION FED REG, on November 17, 2015 at the request of the USTR, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) launched its formal investigation to assess the TPP’s overall economic impact, as mandated by the legislation to renew Trade Promotion Authority passed earlier this year. As the Commission states in the notice, the purpose of the investigation is to assess the likely impact of the Agreement on the U.S. economy as a whole and on specific industry sectors and the interests of U.S. consumers.

The important dates during the investigation include a public hearing on January 13, 2016 and pre‐hearing briefs and statements due on December 29, 2015. Post-hearing briefs and statements are due January 22, 2016. The ITC will transmit its report to Congress on May 18, 2016.

CONGRESSMAN DAVE REICHERT OF WASHINGTON BECOMES CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS—GOOD NEWS FOR WASHINGTON STATE AND FOR FREE TRADE IN GENERAL

On November 18, 2015, in the attached an announcement, REICHERT ANNOUNCEMENT CHAIRMAN, Congressman Dave Reichert, a Republican from Washington State, made the following statement after being named as the new Chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade:

I am very honored to have the opportunity to lead the Trade Subcommittee and champion some of the issues that have the greatest impact on Washingtonians. Washington State is one of the most trade-dependent states in the country with 40 percent of our jobs and more than $90 billion in annual exports connected to trade. In the Eighth District alone, 77,100 jobs are supported by trade, and our growers, producers, and businesses export approximately $8.6 billion in goods and services each year.

With the release of the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and our ongoing negotiations with the EU, this is a critical time for trade. As a longtime advocate of expanding trade opportunities, I will continue fighting on behalf of our workers, farmers, and businesses across the country, because I firmly believe through high-standard trade agreements we see expanded opportunities for all.

Representative Reichert is the first Member of Congress from Washington State to serve as Chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade.

From personal knowledge, I can confirm that the selection of Representative Dave Reichert as Chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, House Ways and Mean, is important for Washington State and for Free Trade proponents and advocates everywhere.

This is a very powerful position in Washington DC in the Trade network. Not only the TPP, but amendments to the US Antidumping and Countervailing Duty law, Trade Adjustment Assistance and the US Customs law go through his Committee. Chairman Reichert was recently named to the Conference Committee with the US Senate on the pending Customs and Trade bill, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, H.R. 644, presently in Congress. The Conference Committee met December 7, 2015 on Capitol Hill and as indicated below, came to Agreement on the Bill on December 9, 2015 for passage in Congress by the end of the year.

The issue of Retroactive Liability for US importers and market economy treatment for China in 2016 are squarely in the jurisdiction of the Trade Subcommittee, House Ways and Means, which Congressman Reichert now chairs.

Rep. Reichert is co-chair of the Friends of TPP Caucus, member of the President’s Export Council, and founder of the Congressional Freight Caucus. Congressman Reichert also signed the discharge petition, as described in my last newsletter, to move the Ex-Im Bank through the House of Representatives.

On November 25, 2015, in an interview on his new position and the TPP, Chairman Reichert stated that he is focused mainly on making sure that the TPP meets many of the negotiating objectives laid out in the Trade Promotion Authority:

Right now, we are all in the process of comparing TPA language to the TPP language and discussing it with our constituents and getting into more discussions as people learn more and more about what’s actually in TPP.

The Chairman also made clear that he is holding off on a full endorsement of the TPP until he and his colleagues have carried out their analysis:

I am a pro-trade guy, but I am not going to support this agreement until we have thoroughly vetted it. This has to be a deal that protects and creates American jobs and gives us the opportunity to have this global influence.

Reichert said that persuading skeptical Republicans will be a key job to bring the TPP to the Floor, but opposition from heavyweights, such as Paul Ryan or Orrin Hatch, will make it more difficult to get TPP through both chambers of Congress. But Chairman Reichert pointed out that the TPP chapters, which cause some Republicans to oppose the bill, could also yield some unlikely allies from the other side of the aisle:

We may lose those members that are really affected by the tobacco provisions but on the other hand on the Democrat side, we may be able to gain some support for votes that we might lose on the Republican side. There’s a lot of work to do in trying to find a direction through this to ensure that we have the votes to pass it [TPP] when it finally comes to the floor.

CONGRESSIONAL ANNOUNCEMENT ON DEAL FOR NEW TRADE AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT BILL

On December 9, 2015, in the attached announcement, AGREEMENT NEW CUSTOMS BILL, Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch, House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member, Ron Wyden, announced a final agreement on the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015.

Some of the key provisions of the bills are stringent enforcement measures for evasion of antidumping and countervailing duties. As Senator Hatch stated:

“Strong enforcement is a key element in our trade arsenal and thanks to this legislation the Administration will have a number of new tools to hold America’s trading partners accountable. Even more, this measure promotes legitimate trade facilitation and works to preserve one of America’s most important economic assets: intellectual property, helping to prevent counterfeit and illicit goods from entering our nation. We’ve put together a good package, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this report across the finish line and signed into law this year.”

As Senator Wyden also stated:

“This enforcement package is about jobs. Too often, our laws and enforcement policies have proven too slow or too weak to stop the trade cheats before jobs are lost. The Leveling the Playing Field Act Congress passed earlier this year helped ensure that workers and businesses harmed by unfair trade have faster access to relief. This conference report, which includes the ENFORCE Act, will help ensure that this relief is effective and that trade cheats cannot evade the consequences of violating our trade laws. The bill we released today represents bipartisan trade enforcement priorities that were years in the making. It takes trade enforcement to a new level to protect workers and businesses in Oregon and around the country. Congress is now on the verge of passing the strongest package of trade enforcement policies in decades.”

Under the new finalized bill, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol will be held accountable for effectively acting to prevent evasion of anti-dumping and countervailing duties through a new process with strict deadlines and judicial review.

If you have any questions about these developments or about the TPP, US Antidumping or other trade laws, trade adjustment assistance, customs, 337, patent, US/China antitrust or securities law in general, please feel free to contact me.

As indicated in more detail below, the Import Alliance will have meetings on November 17th and 18th in Washington DC. On the afternoon of November 17th, we will meet in our Washington DC office and then on November 18th meet with a Congressmen and Congressional Trade Staff to discuss the issues of retroactive liability of US importers in US antidumping and countervailing duty cases and market economy for China in December 2016 as provided in the US China WTO Agreement and the China WTO Agreement.

We welcome participation from US importers and US downstream customers. Please feel free to contact me or the Import Alliance directly. See the attached pamphlet for more information. FINAL IAFA_November2015_Flyer

US CHINA TRADE WAR NEWSLETTER UPDATE NOVEMBER 6, 2015

Dear Friends,

The USTR released the test of the Trans Pacific Agreement (“TPP”) yesterday. This has provoked another fire storm in Washington DC and we will be sending out another blog post detailing the reaction.

But now the clock starts ticking and the release of the text means that President Obama can sign the TPP on January 4th, 60 days after releasing the text of the Agreement. The Congress could theoretically pass the TPP on February 3, 2015, 30 days after President Obama signs it.

But in talking with a Congressional trade staffer on Capitol Hill yesterday, it does not appear to be moving that quickly, but on the other hand I suspect that Congress will not wait until the Lame Duck session either after the November Presidential election.

2016 will certainly be an interesting time in the Trade area.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

TPP TEXT RELEASED TODAY

Yesterday, November 5, 2015, the United States Trade Representative Office (“USTR”) released the text of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. This is an enormous trade agreement covering 12 countries, including the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, and covers 40% of the World’s economy. To read more about the TPP and the political negotiations behind the Agreement see blog post below and past blog posts on this site.

The text of the Agreement is well over 800 pages. We have downloaded the text of the various Chapters, which are listed below.

We have broken the Agreement down into three parts and have added consecutive page numbers to the Agreement in the right hand lower corner to make the Agreement easier to navigate.

For specific tariff changes on specific products, look at attached Chapter 2 National Treatment and Market Access for Goods, Chapters 1 – 2 – Bates 1 – 4115. This is the largest document because it includes all imported items by tariff number. But this is the section that will impact most companies.

TPP countries will publicly report their foreign-exchange intervention and foreign reserves data, some for the first time.

Officials from all TPP countries will consult regularly to address macroeconomic issues, including to engage on efforts to avoid unfair currency practices.

Dear Friends,

This October post will comment on the TPP Agreement in more detail as well as President Xi Jinping’s recent trip to the US and my impressions from Beijing, China during that period, discuss the three flawed trade arguments against China, and also discuss Trade Policy, Trade, Steel and the OCTG case, IP/patent, China antitrust and securities.

As stated below, on October 5th in Atlanta, Trade ministers from the U.S. and 11 other nations, including Japan, Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam and Malaysia, reached an agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (“TPP”), which will link up 40 percent of the world’s economy. President Obama cannot sign the Agreement for a minimum of 60 days after releasing the Agreement to the public. Congress cannot consider and pass the Agreement for a minimum of 30 days after that.

The real question, however, is whether the TPP can pass Congress. Although January was a possible period for Congressional consideration, some Congressional staffers are saying that it will not come until April or possibly in the lame duck session after the Presidential/Congressional election. That would be right in the middle of the Presidential election and all bets are off.

From much of the US Press point of view, President Xi’s recent trip to the US was based on deception with the Chinese government having no real interest in coming to agreement on the US China trade problems on environment, cybersecurity, bilateral investment treaty and other hot button issues. In Beijing, China, however, Chinese television was truly involved in a love fest with the United States.

In the United States, we see cynicism. In China, I saw real friendship for the United States, and a determination to work with the United States in partnership based on a win-win principle that both sides must benefit from the relationship. This is the problem of the US China relationship in a nutshell. Never give any credit to China where credit is due and where they are making efforts to solve the bilateral problems.

Fortunately for the United States, China understands the importance of the US China relationship better than many US politicians and the US press. To be specific, there is more than $500 billion in trade between the United States and China annually with US exports, including services, coming close to $200 billion. As stated above, trade is a two way street, and very few US politicians acknowledge the huge US exports to China, which create US jobs.

The Chinese government has agreed to do one very important thing with regards to the problems with the US government—talk about it. For the last several years, twice a year China and the US have conducted negotiations in the SED and JCCT talks. Now as a result, China will have periodic negotiations on cyber-attacks. In great contrast to Russia, China believes firmly in negotiations with the United States to iron out differences and that is very important for the future of US China relationship.

Also this newsletter discusses the three flawed arguments against China: Cyber Attacks, Currency Manipulation and Dumping and the problem that they foster/create a feeling of international trade victim, which leads to protectionism and a loss of jobs.

The real victims of the trade wars are upstream and downstream producers, such as US based, REC Silicon, a US exporter and major manufacturer of polysilicon and victim of the US China Solar Trade War, as it announces that it may close its US plant in Moses Lake, Washington because it is shut out of China.

Best regards,

Bill Perry

TPP SHOULD PASS CONGRESS BUT 2016 IS AN ELECTION YEAR AND ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN

As stated above, on October 5th, in Atlanta Trade ministers from the U.S. and 11 other nations, including Japan, Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam and Malaysia, reached an agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (“TPP”), which will link up 40 percent of the world’s economy. Some of the key issues in the TPP are:

Cut Tariffs on 18,000 products

New special 2 year safeguard for Certain domestic industries that face a surge in imports

State-owned companies with TPP Countries must conduct commercial activities in accordance with market- based considerations

Vietnam must allow formation of independent labor unions

Malaysia will face trade retaliation if it does not improve its forced labor and human trafficking record

Bar countries from requiring the localized storage of data or surrender valuable source codes as condition of market entry

Require parties to commit to sustainable forest management and conserve at risk plants and animals.

A quick look at the latest statements from USTR, the White House and the Department of Agriculture indicate that two areas will see major benefits – Agriculture and Services, including banking and legal services. Also a number of manufacturing and high tech products will see substantial benefits.

The TPP would phase out thousands of import tariffs as well as other barriers to international trade, such as Japanese regulations, that keep out some American-made autos and trucks. It also would establish uniform rules on corporations’ intellectual property and open the Internet even in Vietnam.

USTR has stated the TPP would end more than 18,000 tariffs that the TPP countries have placed on US exports, including autos, machinery, information technology and consumer goods, chemicals and agricultural products, such as avocados in California and wheat, pork and beef from the Plains states.

Right after the Atlanta agreement, USTR Michael Froman stated in an interview:

In sector after sector, our workers are the most productive in the world. Our farmers and ranchers are globally competitive. Our manufacturing plants are globally competitive. If there’s a level playing field, we can compete, and we believe we can win.

Froman further stated that the US, which has an average tariff of approximately 1.4 percent, faces tariffs twice as high when US companies export to other countries. Froman also stated that Iowa would benefit from decreases in tariffs on pork, currently as high as 388 percent, and beef, which are as high as 50 percent:

“We already know there’s great demand for American beef in Japan,” where the beef tariff would ultimately drop to 9 percent from 38.5 percent currently.”

Tariffs on beer, some as high as 47 percent in certain TPP countries, will be “eliminated”

Froman further stated,

We’re working with the other countries to finalize details of the text and put it through a legal scrub.” In the meantime, “we’re having ongoing conversations with congressional leadership and our congressional partners about the process going forward”

On October 16th, however, during a Council on Foreign Relations conference call, USTR Froman also stated that the TPP could not be renegotiated and expressed confidence that Congress would eventually pass the TPP Agreement, stating:

“This is a different kind of agreement than other [free trade agreements] we’ve negotiated; other negotiations have tended to be between the U.S. and one other trading partner. It’s infinitely more complex when you’ve got 11 other trading partners at the table. This isn’t one of those agreements where [you can] reopen an issue or renegotiate a provision.”

Froman conceded that some TPP countries will need “capacity building to technical assistance” when it comes to implementation and enforcement in areas such as patent systems and promoting independent unions, but noted that U.S. officials are working to address concerns voiced by skeptics in government and industry:

“We’re working with Congress, we’re working with the other agencies to develop a full plan for the monitoring and enforcement of TPP. And we’re working with the U.S. Department of Labor on the enforcement of labor provisions, working with our embassies, people on the ground who can help monitor the implementation and cite enforcement issues as they arise.”

Froman further stated:

“TPP presents a choice between two futures, one in which the U.S. is helping to lead on trade and starting a race to the top in terms of global standards, and the other where we take a backseat or sit on the sidelines and allow a race to the bottom that would undermine U.S. influence around the world and result in a lower standard, less open global trading system.”

According to Paulson Institute, in addition to agriculture and manufacturing, the TPP will cause substantial growth in the service industries, including the legal and banking industries. The elimination of services barrier in the TPP countries could lead U.S. services exports to jump by $300 billion. The Paulson Institute further stated a major reason:

“high barriers to service imports and investment that now prevail in TPP countries will be lowered. The barriers include outright bans, quotas, restrictive licenses, buy-national procurement rules, and discriminatory access to distribution networks.”

Meanwhile five former Democratic National Committee chairmen urged party members and Congress to support the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, arguing that the pact will ultimately benefit American workers and businesses by expanding labor rights around the world.

Automobile tires made in Ohio that face tariffs or foreign taxes as high as 40 percent would be eliminated. According to Josh Earnest, White House press secretary:

“The TPP actually goes one step further by making sure that manufacturers aren’t at a disadvantage when they sell their tires abroad to any of our 11 TPP countries. So Ohio is a good example.”

According to Earnest, leather boots that are shipped from Texas to TPP countries face foreign taxes as high as 30 percent, which would be eliminated, along with tariff elimination or reduction on exports of US-made bourbon whisky, Port wine, Michigan cars and Missouri barbecue sauce.

The agreement will immediately cut in half and eventually eliminate Japan’s 8.5 percent tariff on imports of fresh cherries. On October 6, 2015, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack stated:

“The TPP is a high-value, high-standards agreement that will allow the U.S. and other nations to counter Chinese influence in the region. History will tell us that agriculture is a winner every time in trade deals, and TPP is going to be no exception to that history.”

Vilsack stated that some of the agricultural products that will see lower tariffs are U.S. beef, pork, produce, nuts and wine. TPP will reduce Japanese tariffs on beef imports from 38.5 percent to 9 percent, and Japan also will eliminate 80 percent of its pork tariffs in 11 years.

Highly protected dairy industries in Canada and Japan also will be opened to limited import access. Japan has a 40 percent tariff on cheese, which will be eliminated under the TPP, and the country established a low-tariff quota for milk powder and butter equivalent to 70,000 tons of raw milk. Canada granted duty-free access to 3.25 percent of its dairy sector.

Vilsack said historic reductions in tariffs on U.S. exports should indicate that the TPP is a “net winner” and that failing to grasp the opportunity to sell more U.S. products to a rapidly expanding middle class in the Asia Pacific would be a mistake.

With regards to dairy products, Vilsack stated:

“When it came to Canada and Japan, we pushed for as strong access as possible and focused on the most lucrative products for the U.S. At the same time, we were somewhat sensitive to New Zealand expanding access in the U.S.”

The U.S. dairy industry in 2014 said it was prepared to eliminate all tariffs affecting trade with Canada and Japan if they did the same. In the end, the U.S. had to pull back when it became apparent the two countries weren’t ready to go from “zero to 100.” Japan, which counts dairy among its five sensitive agricultural commodities protected by a politically influential union of farmer cooperatives and tariffs and quotas, committed to phasing out tariffs on cheese over 16 years and created low-tariff quotas for milk powder and butter.

Those offers meant the U.S. had to balance New Zealand’s requests for a completely liberalized international dairy market resembling its own, where there are no tariffs. Dairy also is New Zealand’s No. 1 export and can move into new markets quickly. The U.S. agreed in 20 to 30 years to eliminate tariffs on less sensitive products like milk powder and non-fat dry milk from Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and allow additional butter and cheese imports through tariff-rate quotas. All tariffs on dairy products from Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam would be gone within 20 years. The U.S. also will have safeguard measures for milk powders and some cheese to combat potential import surges.

Jim Mulhern, president and chief executive officer of the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), stated:

“Based on information available to date, it appears that our industry has successfully avoided the type of disproportionate one-way street that we were deeply concerned could have resulted under this agreement. New Zealand did not get the unfettered access to the U.S. market that it long sought; but Japan and Canada did not open their markets to the degree we sought.”

The entire U.S. horticulture sector is the hidden winner in the TPP agricultural deal. All tariffs would go to zero if TPP were implemented in countries like Japan, Vietnam and Malaysia that currently have high taxes on imports. Japan imposes an 8.5 percent tariff on frozen French fries, which would be eliminated in four years, and a 20 percent tariff on dehydrated potatoes that would be phased out over six years. Once the TPP is implemented, more than 50 percent of U.S. farm goods will get immediate duty-free treatment in Japan, most of which are horticultural products, such as grapes, strawberries, walnuts, almonds, raisins and certain fruit juices. Vietnam has tariffs up to 40 percent on vegetable imports that would end within 11 years, while Malaysia would immediately eliminate tariffs as high as 90 percent.

The real question, however, is whether the TPP can pass Congress. Although January was a possible period for Congressional consideration, some Congressional staffers stated that it would not come until April. Recently, statements have been made that there will be no vote on TPP until the lame duck session in Congress after the Presidential/Congressional elections in November 2016. Recently, however, the White House indicated that it wants a Congressional vote on the TPP before the Lame Duck session.

The first question, however, is when will the actual text of the TPP be released to the Public and that apparently will not happen until late November, which means President Obama cannot sign the Agreement until 60 days later and the Congress cannot pass it until 30 days after that.

But this time deadline seems to be moving away as there are further negotiations to clean up the legal terms in the Agreement, especially on currency manipulation. This will mean that the TPP will be a major issue in the Presidential primary and election, which makes it more difficult.

On October 5th, Senator Sessions, a well-known Republican Senator, who opposes TPP, told Breitbart news that it is possible to kill the TPP bill, but then following the law he stated that the Bill does not require 60 votes to pass filibuster in the Senate or 67 votes because it is a treaty:

“I think it’s possible. When they passed fast track, they got 60 votes… The treaty itself now is no longer subject to supermajority or filibuster. It will pass with a simple majority. It cannot be amended: it’ll be brought up one day and voted on the next day with no amendments– up or down. And in the past, they’ve always passed. And I think that will be what experts will tell you today, but I think the American people are getting more and more uneasy about the effect of trade and the promises that our trading partners are going to comply with their part of the bargain and that we’re all going to benefit have not been real . . . .”

But since the TPP only requires a simple majority to pass the Senate, not the 60 votes to pass Trade Promotion Authority (“TPA”), it should pass but now the ball is truly in the Court of Senators Orrin Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Ron Wyden, Ranking Democratic Member of the Senate Finance Committee, and Representative Paul Ryan, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. All three members are in the Center of their respective parties. No matter what the Press states, Senator Hatch is not on the extreme right wing of the Republican party and neither is Paul Ryan. If they approve the TPP, a majority of Republican members should stay with them.

The heaviest lift, however, will be on the Democratic side by Senator Ron Wyden because the majority of the Democratic Party is against the Free Trade Agreement because of the power of the Unions. The only reason the TPA bill passed in late July is that the Republicans won the mid-term elections in 2014. If the Democrats has won, Senator Harry Reid had already stated that the TPA bill would not have come to the floor. But to pass the TPA bill through the Senate, the Republicans still needed Democratic votes because of the 60 vote filibuster rule. The TPA bill received 62 votes, but just 62 and no more with a number of Democratic votes, including Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell from Washington State, to replace the Republican Senators, such Senator Sessions and Senator Rand Paul, who voted against the Agreement.

But these three members, Hatch, Wyden and Ryan are critical to the passage of the TPP. One problem is that October 5th, the day of the announcement, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch stated that although the details of the TPP “are still emerging, unfortunately I am afraid this deal appears to fall woefully short.” Also listen to his October 8th phone call on CSPAN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2T6xA7XMuY when he explains his concerns in more detail.

Another problem is the turmoil in the House of Representatives over the next speaker. Paul Ryan’s name has been mentioned, but some conservative members are against Ryan because of his stand on the TPP. As the Wall Street Journal stated on October 21, 2015 in its editorial entitled, The Ryan Stakes:

“He has impeccable conservative credentials. . . . Yet in the last week some on the right have come out against Mr. Ryan because he supposedly is not conservative enough – in particular because he favors free trade . . . .”

The Administration will have some heavy lifting to persuade Senators Hatch, Wyden and Representative Ryan that the TPP does meet the high standards set by the Congress in the TPA legislation in July. But if these three lawmakers approve, a majority of the members in the Senate and House should pass the TPP.

Other lawmakers that will be critical in this upcoming battle are in the Senate, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell and Democratic Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell from Washington State and in the House, Republican representatives Pat Tiberi and Dave Reichert on the Subcommittee on Trade, House Ways and Means. Also important in the House, will be the 50 member New Dem Coalition, which is pro international trade and pro economic growth, such as Representatives Ron Kind, Rick Larson, Derek Kilmer and Suzan DelBene. See the Politico article, which describes the New Democrat Coalition in detail at http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/new-dems-plan-assertive-new-presence-in-house-121208.html. See also http://www.newdempac.com.

But Democrats have felt significant pressure from environmental groups and labor unions, who are fiercely opposed to the accord. Meanwhile, Republicans have struggled to strike a balance between support for free trade in general and the deep mistrust of giving Obama more power among GOP voters.

But as stated above, 2016 is an election year, and in contrast to several Republican candidates, such as Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich, which are inclined to support the Agreement, but want to read it first, Donald Trump on the Republican side and Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side are both fighting hard against the TPP. It is interesting to note that the extreme Right of the Republican party, Donald Trump, and the extreme Left of the Democratic party, Bernie Sanders, both have a common goal to stop the Trade Agreement and send the United States back to protectionism. They are both populists and they know that being protectionist stirs up the bases.

Keep in mind that the Unions are solidly behind Sanders and recently the Teamsters told the Clinton campaign that they would not endorse her because they wanted to talk to Trump first. They like Trump’s stand on the trade agreements, including TPP.

Trump has taken the strongest position against TPP or Obamatrade as he calls it — making opposition to global trade policies and trade agreements one of the key issues of his campaign. In a quote to Breitbart News, even though he has not read the Agreement, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump hammered President Barack Obama for failing the American worker with the TPP stating:

“The incompetence and dishonesty of the President, his administration and—perhaps most disturbing—the Congress of the United States are about to place American jobs and the very livelihoods of Americans at risk . . . . The only entities to benefit from this trade deal will be other countries, particularly China and Japan, and big corporations in America. . . .”

Trump indicated that if crony capitalism were not bad enough, then sticking it to unions, small businesses and everyday Americans seems to be the new blood sport inside the Washington DC Beltway.

“If this was such a good deal, why was there not more transparency? Why are we striking trade agreements with countries we already have agreements with? Why is there no effort to make sure we have fair trade instead of ‘free’ trade that isn’t free to Americans? Why do we not have accompanying legislation that will punish countries that manipulate their currencies to seek unfair advantage in trade arrangements? Why has the Congress not addressed prohibitive corporate tax rates and trade agreements that continue to drain dollars and jobs from America’s shores?”

Trump finally stated:

“It’s time for leadership in Washington It’s time to elect a President who will represent the only special interest not getting any attention—The American People. It’s time to send a real businessman to the White House. It’s time to Make America Great Again.”

In regards to the TPP, Trump’s major argument is that we have lousy negotiators in Washington DC and he will appoint better negotiators if he becomes President. The TPP, however, has been negotiated by the United States Trade Representative’s office (“USTR”) for more than five years. USTR’s officials are considered the top trade officials/negotiators in the US Government, and Ambassador Froman, who heads up USTR, is a trade pro, liked by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

Bottom line is the TPP deal is probably the best deal the US could get under the circumstances. Just having a tough negotiator, does not mean that there would be a better deal. All of international trade law is based on reciprocity and what the US can do to other countries, those countries can do back.

In contrast to Trump, the Washington Post likes the deal. On October 5th, it issued an editorial stating:

“The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a trade deal worth celebrating

The United States and 11 other nations concluded the long-awaited Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, or TPP, on Monday -demonstrating that it is still possible for this country to exercise world leadership, and to do big things in its own national interest, given consistent White House leadership and sufficient bipartisan support in Congress.

As President Obama sees it, the TPP would achieve both economic and strategic goals. By slashing tariffs and harmonizing regulatory regimes covering 40 percent of the global economy, the deal would spur growth in the United States and abroad. By knitting the U.S. and Japanese economies together in their first free-trade deal-and binding both of them closer to rising Asian nations-the TPP would create a counterweight to China in East Asia. Not incidentally, the deal would also help Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe, overcome domestic interest-group resistance to reforming his nation’s sclerotic economy.

Those arguments persuaded bipartisan majorities of the Republican-controlled Congress to empower Mr. Obama’s negotiating team with so-called “fast-track” authority this year, and, as predicted, that vote helped win substantial new access to the Japanese and other markets for U.S. producers, as well as provisions on the environment and labor rights -including Vietnam’s first acceptance of possible independent trade unions.

In granting the administration fast-track authority, Congress rejected claims from a legion of critics to the effect that the TPP would sell out U.S. workers, the environment or even public health. In fact, the tentative deal would ensure that a controversial dispute arbitration system is more transparent and cannot be used by tobacco makers to escape member nations’ tough regulations. The U.S. team also struck a compromise designed to protect the legitimate intellectual property interests of American drugmakers without depriving poor nations of access to life-saving medicine.

It’s good that the critics lost the fast-track debate in Congress; but it’s not bad we had that debate, because it helped U.S. negotiators identify areas of legitimate concern and, accordingly, areas where the deal could incorporate those concerns. What’s emerged from the talks suggests that the TPP will indeed live up to Mr. Obama’s promise of a “21St-century” agreement: one that anchors the United States in a key region for decades to come, while increasing the scope of trade policy beyond just tariffs.

Difficult as it has been to reach this point, the last leg-final passage for the TPP in both houses of Congress during an election year could prove even more difficult. Republican Donald Trump and Independent-running-as­ Democrat Bernie Sanders have been whipping up protectionist sentiment against the TPP even before they knew what would be in it. Over the course of the next few months, the public and Congress will have an opportunity to pore over the pact. If its details prove to be as advertised, people are likely to conclude that the benefits of the deal outweigh its risks. For now, though, it’s enough to note the fact that Washington can still get something done, and to celebrate that.”

On October 7th, Hilary Clinton, however, announced her opposition to the TPP in an interview with Judy Woodruff for PBS’s “News Hour” program. She stated:

“What I know about it, as of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it. I don’t believe it’s going to meet the high bar I have set.”

She cited weakness on currency manipulation and failures with the FTA with Korea. While Secretary of State, Clinton had predicted TPP would be the “gold standard” of free trade agreements and firmly supported it numerous times, but the pressure of the primary, in particular, attacks by Bernie Sanders have pushed her more to the left of the Party and to oppose the Agreement. Labor unions, whose endorsements she is seeking, are united against it, as are the vast majority of Congressional Democrats. Only 28 House Democrats, and 13 in the Senate, voted for the fast-track bill.

On October 7th, in response to Hilary Clinton’ s statement on TPP, Paul Ryan, Chairman of House Ways and Means, stated on MSNBC:

“I wrote TPA so that Congress would have the tools and the public would have the ability to see what’s in this agreement. I am for free trade agreements, but I’m for very good free trade agreements. I have yet to decide… if this is a very good free trade agreement because I haven’t read it yet, so I just do not know the answer to your question, Chuck. But I’m holding judgment; I’m hopeful, but there are some concerns I have with some of the provisions in here, and quite frankly, we want to see what it is on net,…but it’s going to take some time to scrub through this agreement, to render final judgment.”

“I find it interesting that a person who is seeking to run for the Presidency of the United States, who was in favor of it before, say Hillary Clinton, that she hasn’t even read yet. It’s an enormous agreement and I think we need to be cautious about it. I think we need to do our jobs and read what’s in here.”

On October 8, 2015, the Washington Post in an editorial stated that Hilary Clinton’s stance on the TPP was “disappointing”:

“Bowing to pressure from the Democratic Party’s ascendant protectionist wing, would-be presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has come out against President Obama’s freshly negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. The most hopeful thing to be said about this deeply disappointing abandonment of the president she served, and the internationalist tendency in Democratic ideology she once embodied, is that it is so transparently political. There is no way that Ms. Clinton can oppose the 12-nation deal on its merits.

In part, that’s because she doesn’t know all the details, as she acknowledged. More to the point, the reasons she offered for her view could not have been convincing, even to her. There was nothing in the deal about alleged currency manipulation by U.S. trading partners, she complained. Yet the biggest manipulator, China, isn’t a party to the pact. As the Obama administration argued, trade pacts by definition deal with tariffs and the like, not monetary policy; currency rules might have been construed to limit the Federal Reserve’s options unduly. . . .

And of course, Ms. Clinton’s opposition to the TPP flies in the face of her repeated statements to the opposite effect when she was Mr. Obama’s secretary of state — and after. . . .Ms. Clinton understood then, the TPP was not only about economics but also about geopolitics.

It’s particularly crucial to Mr. Obama’s essential effort to strengthen U.S. ties to Japan and other East Asian nations, thus counterbalancing China, a “rebalance” for which Ms. Clinton once proudly claimed some authorship.

And so on. In other words, there is still a chance that later on, if or when she’s president, and it is to her advantage, she may discover some decisive good point in the TPP that would let her take a different position without, technically, contradicting herself. Cynical? Perhaps, but as we said, that’s the hope.”

On October 9th, John Brinkley at Forbes in article entitled Hillary Clinton’s Flip-Flop On TPP Comes Amid Shift In Washington On Free Trade, stated:

“To borrow a phrase from Alice in Wonderland, the politics of trade are getting curiouser and curiouser.

Shortly after the 12 governments that are parties to the Trans-Pacific Partnership announced they had arrived at a deal, Hillary Clinton announced that she opposed it. The timing suggests that she came out against it not because she thought it was, on balance, a bad deal for Americans, but because she determined that supporting it would cost her more votes than opposing it would.

Now, all three major Democratic presidential candidates – Clinton, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley – are against the TPP, which is one of President Obama’s signature foreign policy goals. Sanders and O’Malley have always opposed free trade. Clinton had always supported it – until she became a presidential candidate.

Earlier, two Republican senators who historically have voted in favor of free trade agreements said they weren’t so sure about this one. . . .

These position changes don’t represent a sea-change in the way politicians view free trade. Hatch and McConnell objection to sections of that offend the corporate CEOs and country club Republicans they so nobly represent.

But it does seem that the spectrum of American support for free trade is getting narrower. It used to be that almost all congressional Republicans and most moderate Democrats were reliable yes votes for free trade agreements. Not anymore.

Tea Party Republicans oppose the TPP and free trade in general. But now, their animus seems to be seeping into the mainstream of the Republican Party. Pro-labor Democrats have opposed free trade all the way back to NAFTA. But now, some of the more moderate members of the Democratic Party are starting to look askance at the TPP.

The first sign of this appeared in June, when the House passed a Trade Promotion Authority bill last June by only eight votes.

Optimists hope the 219-211 vote by which the House voted to approve TPA will hold up for the TPP vote. Maybe it will, but the TPP vote will take place in an election year and the TPA vote didn’t. . . .

A long-term reason is that the anti-free trade forces are better at selling their case to the American public than the pro-free trade camp is. The former appeals to their emotions, the latter to their intellects. . . .

So, you can see why pro-trade Democrats who voted for TPA might be reluctant to support the TPP. And, they have an easy way out: their access to the TPP text was restricted during the negotiations. When the final text is posted publicly, they can read it and say, “OMG, I didn’t know THAT was in there!”

“Those of us who think this (agreement) is good were late the party,” Rosenberg said. Not only were they late, they didn’t bring anything good to eat or drink.

“The chances of our losing this have to be a clear and present danger for all of us,” he said.”

During the Democratic debate on October 13, 2015, Hilary Clinton stated that she had read the TPP, which created a lot head scratching at the White House because the final TPP Agreement has not been released to the public and some aspects, such as currency manipulation, are still being negotiated.

President Obama has been clear on his support for the Agreement:

“When more than 95 percent of our potential customers live outside our borders, we can’t let countries like China write the rules of the global economy. We should write those rules, opening new markets to American products while setting high standards for protecting workers and preserving our environment.”

One surprise came on October 5, 2015 when the Treasury announced that, in addition to lowering trade barriers, the 12 Trans-Pacific Partnership member nations would “strengthen macroeconomic cooperation, including on exchange rate issues, in appropriate fora.” The 12 countries are discussing a possible arrangement for senior finance ministry and central bank officials to meet periodically. As indicated in more detail below, Congress put considerable pressure on the Obama administration last spring to insist on an enforceable currency provision in the trade pact. But the administration and the Federal Reserve fought back, saying that it might someday be used against American policy makers to limit their flexibility to set short-term interest rates and adopt other monetary measures.

At the same time, US trade officials have suggested that the TPP could be a model for an eventual deal with China. China has emerged as the largest foreign investor in many Asian countries as well as the biggest exporter to them, and that has given China a stake in greater openness and an interest in TPP. See Article below from Chinese Trade lawyer about TPP.

On October 6, 2015, The Wall Street Journal in an editorial entitled The Pacific Trade Stakes stated:

“it would be an historic loss if the pact failed because U.S. negotiators bowed too far to protectionist forces, as some early signals suggest TPP will eliminate or reduce about 18,000 tariffs, taxes and non-tariff barriers like quotas, and there’s no denying the pro-growth gains, especially for U.S. goods and services. America already has low tariffs on most products, so this will do more to open up the foreign markets to which 44% of U.S. goods exports now flow.

The U.S. enjoys big comparative advantages in agriculture (soybeans, fruit, corn) and high-value manufacturing like aerospace, computer equipment, auto parts, organic chemicals and more recently oil and gas. Other domestic winners include software, insurance and finance.

Planks that deal with non-discriminatory market access for investment and cross-border services are also useful, as is a provision to protect the free movement of data and information as digital markets mature. TPP includes innovative mechanisms to promote the development of production and supply chains, such as requiring some yarns and fabrics for apparel to be sourced from a TPP member. . . .

No labor or environmental safeguards can win over the Bernie Sanders left, while the Donald Trump right doesn’t care about specifics like IP. Their opposition is implacable and will be amplified by the presidential campaign.

To ratify the pact, President Obama really needs the support of free traders like Orrin Hatch, who said TPP “appears to fall woefully short.” We hope he’s wrong and that the Administration negotiated enough liberalization to deserve his support. Yet the Utah Senator and the three other bipartisan chairmen and ranking members of the Senate Finance and Ways and Means committees joined on a letter last week importuning negotiators “to take the time necessary to get the best deal possible for the United States.” .

If the Administration prioritized speed over substance to get TPP done on Mr. Obama’s watch and capitulated too soon on biotech and elsewhere, the danger is that free traders will defect—and there is little margin for error. The fast-track trade promotion bill passed the House 218-206 and the Senate 60-38.

TPP probably won’t come to a vote until after the 2016 election. Congress should use the time to carefully vet the chapters and ensure that the pact complies with the 150 or so congressionally mandated “negotiating objectives” built into fast track. Mr. Obama will also need to start persuading the Congress with more than his usual Mr. Congeniality routine.

Nine and a half of every 10 of the world’s consumers resides somewhere other than America, so arrangements like the TPP that break down obstacles to trade and investment are crucial to prosperity at home. The question is whether this TPP is the best the U.S. can do.”

INDIA MOANS THAT IT IS OUT AND CHINA WANTS IN

Meanwhile India moans that it is out, but China wants in. On October, 6, 2015, the Wall Street Journal also reported in an article about India lagging other nations in lowering trade barriers and the impact of the TPP on India:

“As more of its biggest trading partners stitch together their economies into low-tariff blocs, India risks getting edged out of key markets at a time when Prime Minister Narendra Modi is trying to rev up economic growth and further integrate his country into global supply chains.

A senior official in India’s Commerce Ministry said Tuesday that New Delhi didn’t want to join the new partnership and is worried the deal could slow WTO trade negotiations.

“WTO will lose much of its steam because the U.S. won’t have the appetite for it anymore” as it focuses on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the official said. “Nothing of the development agenda in the current round of talks [in the WTO] will be taken seriously.” . . . .

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, if approved by member governments, could make India less competitive in some of the world’s largest markets. A study last year by the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade found that the pact would harm India’s exports, particularly in textiles, clothing and leather products, as countries such as Vietnam and Malaysia get cheaper access to the U.S. and other markets covered by the deal. But the negative fallout would be limited, the researchers said, because India already has tariff agreements with several partnership nations, including Japan and Malaysia. . . .”

The Wall Street Journal also reported on October 5th that the TPP was a setback for China:

“China had been invited to join the trade group, but Beijing has been reluctant to comply with many of the required rules, such as opening up the financial sector. By not being a founding member, experts say, China misses the opportunity to help shape an important pillar of the global trading system—a priority for President Xi Jinping.

“The key is whether China’s domestic reforms will be enough or sufficient. If they are not, it will have to follow the U.S. and lose its chance with the TPP to help make the rules,” said Shi Yinhong, director of the Center on American Studies at Renmin University.

The trade deal is expected to help blunt Beijing’s efforts to chart its own course for the region. . . .

The world’s second-largest economy also misses out on a grouping that includes many technologically advanced countries at a time when it is working hard to introduce high tech innovation, analysts said. And its economy needs the pressure of foreign competition to give its stalled domestic reform agenda a push, as with the productivity burst China enjoyed after joining the World Trade Organization in 2001, they added.

Two years ago, Mr. Xi announced a broad overhaul to give markets greater sway in an effort to ward off a slowdown and shift the economy to services and consumption and away from industry. Restructuring, however, has been spotty, delayed by opposition from state companies, by the sharpness of the deceleration, corporate and local government debt and excess capacity in housing and industry. . . .

Beijing could face significant internal and external hurdles if it eventually moves to join the trade bloc, said University of Chicago professor Dali Yang, especially given concern among some that it hasn’t always followed the rules since joining the WTO. Even inside China, there is growing recognition that China’s somewhat capricious system—where regulations can be applied arbitrarily and state-owned companies still dominate large swaths of the economy—makes membership unlikely soon, he added.

“The Chinese economy needs a jolt. It really needs reform,” Mr. Yang said. “Many feel the TPP was borne out of a frustration after the WTO, that China went back on its word in telecommunication, for instance, by not letting foreigners have a major stake.”

On October 8th Commerce Minister Gao Hucheng of MOFCOM, China’s Ministry of Commerce, stated that China will evaluate the impact of the TPP based on the official text of the treaty and hopes it will complement other agreements, stating:

“China hopes the TPP pact and other free trade arrangements in the region can boost each other and contribute to the Asia-Pacific’s trade, investment and economic growth.

Chinese officials have stated that they would need to see the agreement enter into force and be in effect for several years before deciding whether it would be worthwhile for China to make all the legal and policy changes necessary to meet the commitments in the agreement and attempt to accede to the TPP.”

“As the result of a high-standard, ambitious, comprehensive agreement promoting economic growth; enhancing innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raising living standards; reducing poverty in our countries; and promoting transparency, good governance, and enhancing labor and environmental protections, the TPP will be an important step toward the ultimate goal of open trade and regional integration across the region and setting the example rules for the global commerce. . . .

The current TPP members cover 40% of the global trade, and 36% of the world GDP. Once the pact is ratified and signed into laws by the members for implementation, more regional economies such as Korea, Philippines, Thailand, and Taiwan will have a chance to join. The TPP will also serve as a good example for additional trade negotiations, such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (“TTIP”), and even the WTO further negotiations. Since international trade is intertwined, the long term significance of the TPP shall not be downplayed, even for the non-member economies and other regions.

Since 1980’s, China has been the beneficiary and contributing party of trade globalization, liberalization and regional economic boom, and shall continue to welcome opportunities and accept the challenges in positive and active thinking, decision-making and behavior. In addition to the bilateral trade pacts, we believe China should seize this chance and embrace the TTP to more deeply participate in the regional trade arrangement, play more significant roles and enjoy more benefits. China should review and study the pact diligently and carefully and prepare to negotiate and join the regional trade deal for a beneficial trade growth.

At the same time, China can use this to adopt best practices for domestic reforms as they did in 2000 when it negotiated the WTO entry deal.

While details of the TPP are emerging in the near future, in additional to the general principles of rule of law, transparency, nondiscrimination, national treatment, the most-favored nation treatment, “minimum standard of treatment”, “negative list”, and due process, the Chinese side at least needs to focus the following key areas, for which the Chinese rules may have significant gaps . . . .

China, as the second largest economy of the world, is left out of the landmark trade deal, but the door is still open, and the future is in the hands of the Chinese leadership.

We hope China will take this rare opportunity in decades to review and accept the internationally recognized values, rules, and procedures for free and fair trade, enhance the trade, economic and legal reforms in China, collaborate with the trade partners, overcome the difficulties of economic and social changes, and finally reach the goal of being a nation of sustainable development, modernization, rule of law and democracy for the better-off of the people.”

TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP FINALIZED IN ATLANTA ROUND

On October 5, 2015, in Atlanta, Georgia, Trade ministers from the U.S. and 11 other nations, including Japan, Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam and Malaysia, announced the agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will link up 40 percent of the world’s economy, following an exhausting round of last-minute negotiations that stretched over the weekend.

The scheduled two day session was extended by three days to deal with a number of contentious issues, including commercial exclusivity for biologic pharmaceuticals, automotive issues and market access for dairy products.

President Obama cannot sign the Agreement for a minimum of 60 days after the Agreement is published publicly. Congress cannot consider and pass the Agreement for a minimum of 30 days, after the 60 days, which places Congressional passage possibly in January. The process formally begins when President Barack Obama notifies Congress that he intends to sign the agreement and publishes it. From there, the administration will continue working to brief lawmakers on the contents of the agreement.

“A robust and balanced Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement holds the potential to enhance our economy by unlocking foreign markets for American exports and producing higher-paying jobs here at home. But a poor deal risks losing a historic opportunity to break down trade barriers for American made products with a trade block representing 40 percent of the global economy. Closing a deal is an achievement for our nation only if it works for the American people and can pass Congress by meeting the high-standard objectives laid out in bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority. While the details are still emerging, unfortunately I am afraid this deal appears to fall woefully short. Over the next several days and months, I will carefully examine the agreement to determine whether our trade negotiators have diligently followed the law so that this trade agreement meets Congress’s criteria and increases opportunity for American businesses and workers. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a once in a lifetime opportunity and the United States should not settle for a mediocre deal that fails to set high-standard trade rules in the Asia-Pacific region for years to come.”

Emphasis added.

Predictably, as soon as the deal was announced, Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders, who is running for President and bound at the hip with the labor unions, stated that the new trade deal was “disastrous,” and that he would work to defeat it. As Sanders further stated:

Wall Street and other big corporations have won again. It is time for the rest of us to stop letting multinational corporations rig the system to pad their profits at our expense. In the Senate, I will do all that I can to defeat this agreement. We need trade policies that benefit American workers and consumers, not just the CEOs of large multinational corporations.

On October 5th, Chairman Paul Ryan of the House Ways and Means Committee issued a press release, stating:

“A successful Trans-Pacific Partnership would mean greater American influence in the world and more good jobs at home. But only a good agreement—and one that meets congressional guidelines in the newly enacted Trade Promotion Authority—will be able to pass the House. I am reserving judgment until I am able to review the final text and consult with my colleagues and my constituents. In particular, I want to explore concerns surrounding the most recent aspects of the agreement. I’m pleased that the American people will be able to read it as well because TPA requires, for the first time ever, the administration to make the text public for at least 60 days before sending it to Congress for consideration. The administration must clearly explain the benefits of this agreement and what it will mean for American families. I hope that Amb. Froman and the White House have produced an agreement that the House can support.”

On October 4, 2015, Ministers of the 12 Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) countries – Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States, and Vietnam – announced conclusion of their negotiations. The result is a high-standard, ambitious, comprehensive, and balanced agreement that will promote economic growth; support the creation and retention of jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and promote transparency, good governance, and enhanced labor and environmental protections. We envision conclusion of this agreement, with its new and high standards for trade and investment in the Asia Pacific, as an important step toward our ultimate goal of open trade and regional integration across the region.

KEY FEATURES

Five defining features make the Trans-Pacific Partnership a landmark 21st-century agreement, setting a new standard for global trade while taking up next-generation issues. These features include:

Comprehensive market access. The TPP eliminates or reduces tariff and non-tariff barriers across substantially all trade in goods and services and covers the full spectrum of trade, including goods and services trade and investment, so as to create new opportunities and benefits for our businesses, workers, and consumers.

Regional approach to commitments. The TPP facilitates the development of production and supply chains, and seamless trade, enhancing efficiency and supporting our goal of creating and supporting jobs, raising living standards, enhancing conservation efforts, and facilitating cross-border integration, as well as opening domestic markets.

Addressing new trade challenges. The TPP promotes innovation, productivity, and competitiveness by addressing new issues, including the development of the digital economy, and the role of state owned enterprises in the global economy.

Inclusive trade. The TPP includes new elements that seek to ensure that economies at all levels of development and businesses of all sizes can benefit from trade. It includes commitments to help small- and medium-sized businesses understand the Agreement, take advantage of its opportunities, and bring their unique challenges to the attention of the TPP governments. It also includes specific commitments on development and trade capacity building, to ensure that all Parties are able to meet the commitments in the Agreement and take full advantage of its benefits.

Platform for regional integration. The TPP is intended as a platform for regional economic integration and designed to include additional economies across the Asia-Pacific region.

In addition to updating traditional approaches to issues covered by previous free trade agreements (FTAs), the TPP incorporates new and emerging trade issues and cross-cutting issues. These include issues related to the Internet and the digital economy, the participation of state-owned enterprises in international trade and investment, the ability of small businesses to take advantage of trade agreements, and other topics.

TPP unites a diverse group of countries – diverse by geography, language and history, size, and levels of development. All TPP countries recognize that diversity is a unique asset, but also one which requires close cooperation, capacity-building for the lesser-developed TPP countries, and in some cases special transitional periods and mechanisms which offer some TPP partners additional time, where warranted, to develop capacity to implement new obligations.

SETTING REGIONAL TRADE RULES

Below is a summary of the TPP’s 30 chapters. Schedules and annexes are attached to the chapters of the Agreement related to goods and services trade, investment, government procurement, and temporary entry of business persons. In addition, the State-Owned Enterprises chapter includes country-specific exceptions in annexes.

Initial Provisions and General Definitions

Many TPP Parties have existing agreements with one another. The Initial Provisions and General Definitions Chapter recognizes that the TPP can coexist with other international trade agreements between the Parties, including the WTO Agreement, bilateral, and regional agreements. It also provides definitions of terms used in more than one chapter of the Agreement.

Trade in Goods

TPP Parties agree to eliminate and reduce tariffs and non-tariff barriers on industrial goods, and to eliminate or reduce tariffs and other restrictive policies on agricultural goods. The preferential access provided through the TPP will increase trade between the TPP countries in this market of 800 million people and will support high-quality jobs in all 12 Parties. Most tariff elimination in industrial goods will be implemented immediately, although tariffs on some products will be eliminated over longer timeframes as agreed by the TPP Parties. The specific tariff cuts agreed by the TPP Parties are included in schedules covering all goods. The TPP Parties will publish all tariffs and other information related to goods trade to ensure that small- and medium-sized businesses as well as large companies can take advantage of the TPP. They also agree not to use performance requirements, which are conditions such as local production requirements that some countries impose on companies in order for them to obtain tariff benefits. In addition, they agree not to impose WTO-inconsistent import and export restrictions and duties, including on remanufactured goods – which will promote recycling of parts into new products. If TPP Parties maintain import or export license requirements, they will notify each other about the procedures so as to increase transparency and facilitate trade flows.

On agricultural products, the Parties will eliminate or reduce tariffs and other restrictive policies, which will increase agricultural trade in the region, and enhance food security. In addition to eliminating or reducing tariffs, TPP Parties agree to promote policy reforms, including by eliminating agricultural export subsidies, working together in the WTO to develop disciplines on export state trading enterprises, export credits, and limiting the timeframes allowed for restrictions on food exports so as to provide greater food security in the region. The TPP Parties have also agreed to increased transparency and cooperation on certain activities related to agricultural biotechnology.

Textiles and Apparel

The TPP Parties agree to eliminate tariffs on textiles and apparel, industries which are important contributors to economic growth in several TPP Parties’ markets. Most tariffs will be eliminated immediately, although tariffs on some sensitive products will be eliminated over longer timeframes as agreed by the TPP Parties. The chapter also includes specific rules of origin that require use of yarns and fabrics from the TPP region, which will promote regional supply chains and investment in this sector, with a “short supply list” mechanism that allows use of certain yarns and fabrics not widely available in the region. In addition, the chapter includes commitments on customs cooperation and enforcement to prevent duty evasion, smuggling and fraud, as well as a textile-specific special safeguard to respond to serious damage or the threat of serious damage to domestic industry in the event of a sudden surge in imports.

Rules of Origin

To provide simple rules of origin, promote regional supply chains, and help ensure the TPP countries rather than non-participants are the primary beneficiaries of the Agreement, the 12 Parties have agreed on a single set of rules of origin that define whether a particular good is “originating” and therefore eligible to receive TPP preferential tariff benefits. The product-specific rules of origin are attached to the text of the Agreement. The TPP provides for “accumulation,” so that in general, inputs from one TPP Party are treated the same as materials from any other TPP Party, if used to produce a product in any TPP Party. The TPP Parties also have set rules that ensure businesses can easily operate across the TPP region, by creating a common TPP-wide system of showing and verifying that goods made in the TPP meet the rules of origin. Importers will be able to claim preferential tariff treatment as long as they have the documentation to support their claim. In addition, the chapter provides the competent authorities with the procedures to verify claims appropriately.

Customs Administration and Trade Facilitation . . . .

To help counter smuggling and duty evasion, the TPP Parties agree to provide information, when requested, to help each other enforce their respective customs laws.

Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures

In developing SPS rules, the TPP Parties have advanced their shared interest in ensuring transparent, non-discriminatory rules based on science, and reaffirmed their right to protect human, animal or plant life or health in their countries. The TPP builds on WTO SPS rules for identifying and managing risks in a manner that is no more trade restrictive than necessary. . . .

Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)

In developing TBT rules, the TPP Parties have agreed on transparent, non-discriminatory rules for developing technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures, while preserving TPP Parties’ ability to fulfill legitimate objectives. They agree to cooperate to ensure that technical regulations and standards do not create unnecessary barriers to trade. . . .

Trade Remedies

The Trade Remedies chapter promotes transparency and due process in trade remedy proceedings through recognition of best practices, but does not affect the TPP Parties’ rights and obligations under the WTO. The chapter provides for a transitional safeguard mechanism, which allows a Party to apply a transitional safeguard measure during a certain period of time if import increases as a result of the tariff cuts implemented under the TPP cause serious injury to a domestic industry. These measures may be maintained for up to two years, with a one-year extension, but must be progressively liberalized if they last longer than a year. . . .

Investment

In establishing investment rules, the TPP Parties set out rules requiring non-discriminatory investment policies and protections that assure basic rule of law protections, while protecting the ability of Parties’ governments to achieve legitimate public policy objectives. . . .

TPP Parties adopt a “negative-list” basis, meaning that their markets are fully open to foreign investors, except where they have taken an exception (non-conforming measure) in one of two country specific annexes: (1) current measures on which a Party accepts an obligation not to make its measures more restrictive in the future and to bind any future liberalization, and (2) measures and policies on which a Party retains full discretion in the future. . . .

Cross-Border Trade in Services

Given the growing importance of services trade to TPP Parties, the 12 countries share an interest in liberalized trade in this area. TPP includes core obligations found in the WTO and other trade agreements . . . .

Financial Services

The TPP Financial Services chapter will provide important cross-border and investment market access opportunities, while ensuring that Parties will retain the ability to regulate financial markets and institutions and to take emergency measures in the event of crisis. The chapter includes core obligations found in other trade agreements . . . . In addition, the TPP includes specific commitments on portfolio management, electronic payment card services, and transfer of information for data processing.

The Financial Services chapter provides for the resolution of disputes relating to certain provisions through neutral and transparent investment arbitration. It includes specific provisions on investment disputes related to the minimum standard of treatment, as well as provisions requiring arbitrators to have financial services expertise, and a special State-to-State mechanism to facilitate the application of the prudential exception and other exceptions in the chapter in the context of investment disputes. . . .

Temporary Entry for Business Persons

The Temporary Entry for Business Persons chapter encourages authorities of TPP Parties to provide information on applications for temporary entry, to ensure that application fees are reasonable, and to make decisions on applications and inform applicants of decisions as quickly as possible. TPP Parties agree to ensure that information on requirements for temporary entry are readily available to the public, including by publishing information promptly and online if possible, and providing explanatory materials. The Parties agree to ongoing cooperation on temporary entry issues such as visa processing. Almost all TPP Parties have made commitments on access for each other’s business persons, which are in country-specific annexes.

In the Electronic Commerce chapter, TPP Parties commit to ensuring free flow of the global information and data that drive the Internet and the digital economy, subject to legitimate public policy objectives such as personal information protection. The 12 Parties also agree not to require that TPP companies build data centers to store data as a condition for operating in a TPP market, and, in addition, that source code of software is not required to be transferred or accessed. The chapter prohibits the imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions, and prevents TPP Parties from favoring national producers or suppliers of such products through discriminatory measures or outright blocking. . . .

Government Procurement

TPP Parties share an interest in accessing each other’s large government procurement markets through transparent, predictable, and non-discriminatory rules. In the Government Procurement chapter, TPP Parties commit to core disciplines of national treatment and non-discrimination. They also agree to publish relevant information in a timely manner, to allow sufficient time for suppliers to obtain the tender documentation and submit a bid, to treat tenders fairly and impartially, and to maintain confidentiality of tenders. . . ..

Competition Policy

TPP Parties share an interest in ensuring a framework of fair competition in the region through rules that require TPP Parties to maintain legal regimes that prohibit anticompetitive business conduct, as well as fraudulent and deceptive commercial activities that harm consumers. . . . TPP Parties agree to adopt or maintain national competition laws that proscribe anticompetitive business conduct and work to apply these laws to all commercial activities in their territories. . . .

The chapter is not subject to the dispute settlement provisions of the TPP, but TPP Parties may consult on concerns related to the chapter.

State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and Designated Monopolies

All TPP Parties have SOEs, which often play a role in providing public services and other activities, but TPP Parties recognize the benefit of agreeing on a framework of rules on SOEs. The SOE chapter covers large SOEs that are principally engaged in commercial activities. Parties agree to ensure that their SOEs make commercial purchases and sales on the basis of commercial considerations, except when doing so would be inconsistent with any mandate under which an SOE is operating that would require it to provide public services. They also agree to ensure that their SOEs or designated monopolies do not discriminate against the enterprises, goods, and services of other Parties. Parties agree to provide their courts with jurisdiction over commercial activities of foreign SOEs in their territory, and to ensure that administrative bodies regulating both SOEs and private companies do so in an impartial manner. TPP Parties agree to not cause adverse effects to the interests of other TPP Parties in providing non-commercial assistance to SOEs, or injury to another Party’s domestic industry by providing non-commercial assistance to an SOE that produces and sells goods in that other Party’s territory. TPP Parties agree to share a list of their SOEs with the other TPP Parties and to provide, upon request, additional information about the extent of government ownership or control and the non-commercial assistance they provide to SOEs. There are some exceptions from the obligations in the chapter, for example, where there is a national or global economy emergency, as well as country-specific exceptions that are set out in annexes.

Intellectual Property

TPP’s Intellectual Property (IP) chapter covers patents, trademarks, copyrights, industrial designs, geographical indications, trade secrets, other forms of intellectual property, and enforcement of intellectual property rights, as well as areas in which Parties agree to cooperate. The IP chapter will make it easier for businesses to search, register, and protect IP rights in new markets, which is particularly important for small businesses.

The chapter establishes standards for patents, based on the WTO’s TRIPS Agreement and international best practices. On trademarks, it provides protections of brand names and other signs that businesses and individuals use to distinguish their products in the marketplace. The chapter also requires certain transparency and due process safeguards with respect to the protection of new geographical indications, including for geographical indications recognized or protected through international agreements. These include confirmation of understandings on the relationship between trademarks and geographical indications, as well as safeguards regarding the use of commonly used terms. . . .

In addition, the chapter contains pharmaceutical-related provisions that facilitate both the development of innovative, life-saving medicines and the availability of generic medicines, taking into account the time that various Parties may need to meet these standards. . . .

Finally, TPP Parties agree to provide strong enforcement systems, including, for example, civil procedures, provisional measures, border measures, and criminal procedures and penalties for commercial-scale trademark counterfeiting and copyright or related rights piracy. In particular, TPP Parties will provide the legal means to prevent the misappropriation of trade secrets, and establish criminal procedures and penalties for trade secret theft, including by means of cyber-theft, and for cam-cording.

Labour

All TPP Parties are International Labour Organization (ILO) members and recognize the importance of promoting internationally recognized labour rights. TPP Parties agree to adopt and maintain in their laws and practices the fundamental labour rights as recognized in the ILO 1998 Declaration, namely freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining; elimination of forced labour; abolition of child labour and a prohibition on the worst forms of child labour; and elimination of discrimination in employment. They also agree to have laws governing minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health. These commitments also apply to export processing zones. The 12 Parties agree not to waive or derogate from laws implementing fundamental labour rights in order to attract trade or investment, and not to fail to effectively enforce their labour laws in a sustained or recurring pattern that would affect trade or investment between the TPP Parties. In addition to commitments by Parties to eliminate forced labour in their own countries, the Labour chapter includes commitments to discourage importation of goods that are produced by forced labour or child labour, or that contain inputs produced by forced labour, regardless of whether the source country is a TPP Party.

Each of the 12 TPP Parties commits to ensure access to fair, equitable and transparent administrative and judicial proceedings and to provide effective remedies for violations of its labour laws. They also agree to public participation in implementation of the Labour chapter, including establishing mechanisms to obtain public input.

The commitments in the chapter are subject to the dispute settlement procedures laid out in the Dispute Settlement chapter. To promote the rapid resolution of labour issues between TPP Parties, the Labour chapter also establishes a labour dialogue that Parties may choose to use to try to resolve any labour issue between them that arises under the chapter. This dialogue allows for expeditious consideration of matters and for Parties to mutually agree to a course of action to address issues. The Labour chapter establishes a mechanism for cooperation on labour issues, including opportunities for stakeholder input in identifying areas of cooperation and participation, as appropriate and jointly agreed, in cooperative activities.

Environment

As home to a significant portion of the world’s people, wildlife, plants and marine species, TPP Parties share a strong commitment to protecting and conserving the environment, including by working together to address environmental challenges, such as pollution, illegal wildlife trafficking, illegal logging, illegal fishing, and protection of the marine environment. The 12 Parties agree to effectively enforce their environmental laws; and not to weaken environmental laws in order to encourage trade or investment. . . .

The chapter is subject to the dispute settlement procedure laid out in the Dispute Settlement chapter. . . .

Cooperation and Capacity Building . . ..

Competitiveness and Business Facilitation

The Competitiveness and Business Facilitation chapter aims to help the TPP reach its potential to improve the competitiveness of the participating countries, and the Asia-Pacific region as a whole. . . .

Development

The TPP Parties seek to ensure that the TPP will be a high-standard model for trade and economic integration, and in particular to ensure that all TPP Parties can obtain the complete benefits of the TPP, are fully able to implement their commitments, and emerge as more prosperous societies with strong markets. . . .

Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises

TPP Parties have a shared interest in promoting the participation of small- and medium-sized enterprises in trade and to ensure that small- and medium-sized enterprises share in the benefits of the TPP. . . .

Regulatory Coherence

TPP’s Regulatory Coherence chapter will help ensure an open, fair, and predictable regulatory environment for businesses operating in the TPP markets by encouraging transparency, impartiality, and coordination across each government to achieve a coherent regulatory approach. . . .

Transparency and Anti-Corruption

The TPP’s Transparency and Anti-Corruption chapter aims to promote the goal, shared by all TPP Parties, of strengthening good governance and addressing the corrosive effects bribery and corruption can have on their economies. . . .

Administrative and Institutional Provisions

The Administrative and Institutional Provisions Chapter sets out the institutional framework by which the Parties will assess and guide implementation or operation of the TPP, in particular by establishing the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission, composed of Ministers or senior level officials, to oversee the implementation or operation of the Agreement and guide its future evolution. This Commission will review the economic relationship and partnership among the Parties on a periodic basis to ensure that the Agreement remains relevant to the trade and investment challenges confronting the Parties.. . .

Dispute Settlement

The Dispute Settlement chapter is intended to allow Parties to expeditiously address disputes between them over implementation of the TPP. TPP Parties will make every attempt to resolve disputes through cooperation and consultation and encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms when appropriate. When this is not possible, TPP Parties aim to have these disputes resolved through impartial, unbiased panels. The dispute settlement mechanism created in this chapter applies across the TPP, with few specific exceptions. . . .

Should consultations fail to resolve an issue, Parties may request establishment of a panel, which would be established within 60 days after the date of receipt of a request for consultations or 30 days after the date of receipt of a request related to perishable goods. Panels will be composed of three international trade and subject matter experts independent of the disputing Parties, with procedures available to ensure that a panel can be composed even if a Party fails to appoint a panelist within a set period of time. These panelists will be subject to a code of conduct to ensure the integrity of the dispute settlement mechanism. . . .

To maximize compliance, the Dispute Settlement chapter allows for the use of trade retaliation (e.g., suspension of benefits), if a Party found not to have complied with its obligations fails to bring itself into compliance with its obligations. Before use of trade retaliation, a Party found in violation can negotiate or arbitrate a reasonable period of time in which to remedy the breach.

Exceptions

The Exceptions Chapter ensures that flexibilities are available to all TPP Parties that guarantee full rights to regulate in the public interest, including for a Party’s essential security interest and other public welfare reasons. This chapter incorporates the general exceptions provided for in Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 to the goods trade-related provisions, specifying that nothing in the TPP shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by a Party of measures necessary to, among other things, protect public morals, protect human, animal or plant life or health, protect intellectual property, enforce measures relating to products of prison labour, and measures relating to conservation of exhaustible natural resources. . . .

In addition, it specifies that no Party is obligated to furnish information under the TPP if it would be contrary to its law or public interest, or would prejudice the legitimate commercial interests of particular enterprises. A Party may elect to deny the benefits of Investor-State dispute settlement with respect to a claim challenging a tobacco control measure of the Party.

Final Provisions

The Final Provisions chapter defines the way the TPP will enter into force, the way in which it can be amended, the rules that establish the process for other States or separate customs territories to join the TPP in the future, the means by which Parties can withdraw, and the authentic languages of the TPP. It also designates a Depositary for the Agreement responsible for receiving and disseminating documents. . . .

THREE CHINA CANARDS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE VICTIMHOOD

In light of President Xi’s recent trip to the United States and the many arguments thrown at China by the Press and US Politicians, it is time to look at the three major trade/economic attacks against China in detail: cyber- attacks, currency manipulation and dumping. When one digs down, one finds that the arguments are based on misunderstandings and misperceptions and often are not based on complete or actual facts. There are a lot of holes in the US arguments.

In fact, often these arguments are the pot, the United States, calling the kettle, China, black or in Chinese, the crow calling the pig black. What the US accuses the Chinese government of doing, the US government itself is doing against China and other countries.

In truth, the Chinese government can take actions, which are totally unfair, but US government officials should get their facts right and make sure that the attacks on China are based on actual economic reality and the US Government’s actual position.

More importantly, the problem with these attacks is that they lead to a US mindset among companies and unions of globalization/international trade victimhood. The whole world and especially China is out to get the US and we US companies and US workers cannot compete with imports into the US because all are unfairly traded so let’s put up protectionist walls.

This mindset, however, leads to corrosion of a company’s competitive instincts and makes them less able to compete in the modern world and US market. Protectionism leads to the decline of the US industry and the loss of jobs. As President Reagan so eloquently put it the attached June 28, 1968 speech on international trade, BETTER COPY REAGAN IT SPEECH:

international trade is one of those issues that politicians find an unending source of temptation. Like a 5-cent cigar or a chicken in every pot, demanding high tariffs or import restrictions is a familiar bit of flimflmmaery in American politics. But cliches and demagoguery aside, the truth is these trade restrictions badly hurt economic growth. You see, trade barriers and protectionism only put off the inevitable.

Sooner or later, economic reality intrudes, and industries protected by the Government face a new and unexpected form of competition. It may be a better product, a more efficient manufacturing technique, or a new foreign or domestic competitor.

By this time, of course, the protected industry is so listless and its competitive instincts so atrophied that it can’t stand up to the competition. And that, my friends, is when the factories shut down and the unemployment lines start. . . .

Emphasis added.

As indicated below, this last paragraph would appear to fit exactly the Steel Industry.

The inconvenient truth for a Donald Trump and the Republican protectionists is that President Ronald Reagan, who Republicans hold up as their icon, was a true free trader and not a false prophet. So let’s look at these three arguments in detail.

CYBER-ATTACKS

As stated more below, although the US Press, including Forbes, Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times along with a number of US politicians, including Senators McCain and Ayotte, vehemently attack China for its cyber- attacks, when one digs down it turns out that part of the problem is the United States.

As indicated below, on September 29, 2015, in response to specific questions from Senator Manchin in the Senate Armed Services Committee, James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, testified that China cyber- attacks to obtain information on weapon systems are not cyber- crime. It is cyber espionage, which the United States itself engages in. As Dr. Clapper stated both countries, including the United States, engage in cyber espionage and “we are pretty good at it.” Dr. Clapper went on to state that “people in glass houses” shouldn’t throw stones. See http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/15-09-29-united-states-cybersecurity-policy-and-threats at 1hour 8 minutes to 10 minutes.

In response to a specific question from Senator Ayotte, Director Clapper also specifically admitted that the attack on OPM and theft of US government employee data is state espionage and not commercial activity, which the US also engages in. See above hearing at 1 hour 18 and 19 minutes.

During the same hearing, Administration officials acknowledged that the recent Cyber Agreement with China is a good first step.

What does this mean? It means that the US government never asked China for a comprehensive agreement to stop cyber hacking, because the US government is engaged in cyber espionage too and “we are pretty good at it. . . . People in glass houses…”. This illustrates the hypocrisy of much of the political attacks on China regarding cyber-attacks on US security interests and OPM, which are based on incorrect definitions as set down by the US government itself.

What the US Government did demand on the threat of economic sanctions was for the Chinese government to stop cyber-attacks on commercial interests, including the theft of intellectual property. The Chinese government agreed, not only because of the threats of economic sanctions, but also because they realize how important the US China economic/trade relationship is for China, the Chinese people and the entire World.

Although the Press reports that the cyber- attacks still continue, as President Xi specifically mentioned, the Chinese government cannot unilaterally stop all private cyberattacks that come from China, just as the US government cannot unilaterally stop all private cyber- attacks from the US. These are criminal acts.

At the Armed Services hearing, Senator McCain stated that he was astonished at the statement by Director Clapper. What is astonishing is that high level Senators, who launched cynical attack after attack on the Chinese government, do not know the position of their own government and the distinction between state espionage and commercial cyber- attacks. The Senators do not realize or do not want to acknowledge that the pot (the US) is calling the kettle (China) black.

Recently, in an October 6, 2015 article on Energy Wire, entitled “DOE cold case shows limits of U.S.-China cyber cooperation” at http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060025891[10/6/2015 10:41:38 AM] about the Justice Department accusing Chinese officials in the People’s Liberation Army of hacking, Robert Cattanach, co-chairman of the cybersecurity practice group at Dorsey, stated with regards to the provisions in the China Cyber Agreement:

“to end “cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, including trade secrets or other confidential business information, with the intent of providing competitive advantages to companies or commercial sectors” . . . the framework’s omissions are telling. “The U.S. clearly signaled that it was still fine for China to do whatever it wished in the area of national security cyberespionage – and the subtext there is, because we’re doing it, too. Problems come up right away, however, due to the fact that “it’s not at all clear where the dividing line is between ‘acceptable’ cyber hacking and ‘unacceptable’ cyber hacking,”

CURRENCY MANIPULATION

The same problem exists with currency manipulation. First, the general definition of currency manipulation is that a country artificially lowers the value of its currency, to undervalue the currency, so as to have a competitive advantage and encourage exports.

But the problem with this issue is that like cyber-attacks there is no internationally approved definition of currency manipulation, and both the Obama Administration, including President Obama and Secretary of Treasury Lew, along with free trade Senators and Congressmen are worried that without an internationally approved definition, currency manipulation could be used to retaliate against the United States. Remember the Federal Reserve’s Policy of Quantitative Easing.

Regarding China, originally, when the argument was first made in 2004, the Chinese Yuan was worth about 8.2 or 8.3 to the dollar, making the Chinese yuan relatively weak as compared to the US dollar. Since 2004 because of the Currency manipulation argument, China has allowed the Yuan to float within in very short range and gradually strengthened the Chinese yuan to 6.35 yuan today.

Keep in mind that China is worried about strengthening its currency too much, not because of the United States, but because of its Asian competitors. Vietnam, for example, exports more furniture and other products as compared to China because its wages are lower than China. Much of the textile business has now left China to go to Bangladesh, where wages are much lower than China.

For more than 10 years, the US Steel Industry and the Unions have been using the currency manipulation to attack China. But another inconvenient truth is that on May 26, 2015, the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”) determined that China’s currency is no longer unvalued. The IMF specifically stated:

“On the external side, China has made good progress in recent years in reducing the very large current account surplus and accumulation of foreign exchange reserves. . . .While undervaluation of the Renminbi was a major factor causing the large imbalances in the past, our assessment now is that the substantial real effective appreciation over the past year has brought the exchange rate to a level that is no longer undervalued.

In addition, the major argument of many Democratic Senators and Congressmen and even some Republicans is that the Trans Pacific Partnership is not a good deal because there are no enforceable rules against currency manipulation. But the inconvenient truth is that enforceable provisions were not in the Bill because Democratic President Obama and Democratic Secretary of Treasury Lew threatened to veto the TPA bill if enforceable provisions were included.

On May 22, 2015, on the Senate floor during the debate on Trade Promotion Authority (“TPA”) Senator Hatch made a very strong argument against the Currency Amendment proposed by Senators Stabenow and Portman, which would have required enforceable provisions on currency manipulation, stating that the President will veto the TPA bill and if passed could lead to international sanctions against the United States by international tribunals. See Testimony of Senators Wyden and Hatch at http://www.c-span.org/video/?326202-1/us-senate-debate-trade-promotion-authority&live.

As Senator Hatch stated:

Mr. President, I want to take some time today to talk about proposals to include a currency manipulation negotiating objective in trade negotiations and the impact this issue is having on the debate over renewing Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA.

Currency manipulation has, for many, become the primary issue in the TPA debate. . . .

However, I want to be as plain as I can be on this issue: While currency manipulation is an important issue, it is inappropriate and counterproductive to try to solve this problem solely through free trade agreements. . . .

But, first, I think we need to step back and take a look at the big picture. I think I can boil this very complicated issue down to a single point: The Portman-Stabenow Amendment will kill TPA.

I’m not just saying that, Mr. President. It is, at this point, a verifiable fact.

Yesterday, I received a letter from Treasury Secretary Lew outlining the Obama Administration’s opposition to this amendment. The letter addresses a number of issues, some which I’ll discuss later. But, most importantly, at the end of the letter, Secretary Lew stated very plainly that he would recommend that the President veto a TPA bill that included this amendment.

That’s pretty clear, Mr. President. It doesn’t leave much room for interpretation or speculation. No TPA bill that contains the language of the Portman-Stabenow Amendment stands a chance of becoming law. . . .

at this point, it is difficult – very difficult, in fact – for anyone in this chamber to claim that they support TPA and still vote in favor of the Portman-Stabenow Amendment. The two, as of yesterday, have officially become mutually exclusive. . . .

But, regardless of what you think of Secretary Lew’s letter, the Portman-Stabenow Amendment raises enough substantive policy concerns to warrant opposition on its own. Offhand, I can think of four separate consequences that we’d run into if the Senate were to adopt this amendment, and all of them would have a negative impact on U.S. economic interests.

First, the Portman-Stabenow negotiating objective would put the TPP, agreement at grave risk, meaning that our farmers, ranchers, and manufactures – not to mention the workers they employ – would not get access to these important foreign markets, resulting in fewer good, high-paying jobs for American workers.

We know this is the case, Mr. President. Virtually all of our major negotiating partners, most notably Japan, have already made clear that they will not agree to an enforceable provisions like the one required by the Portman-Stabenow Amendment. No country that I am aware of, including the United States, has ever shown the willingness to have their monetary policies subject to potential trade sanctions. Adopting this amendment will have, at best, an immediate chilling effect on the TPP negotiations, and, at worst, it will stop them in their tracks.

If you don’t believe me, then take a look at the letter we received from 26 leading food and agriculture organizations . . . urging Congress to reject the Portman-Stabenow amendment because it will, in their words, “most likely kill the TPP negotiations” Put simply, not only will this amendment kill TPA, it will very likely kill TPP as well.

Second, the Portman-Stabenow Amendment would put at risk the Federal Reserve’s independence in its ability to formulate and execute monetary policies designed to protect and stabilize the U.S. economy. While some in this chamber have made decrees that our domestic monetary policies do not constitute currency manipulation, we know that not all of our trading partners see it that way.

Requiring the inclusion of enforceable rules on currency manipulation and subsequent trade sanctions in our free trade agreements would provide other countries with a template for targeting U.S. monetary policies, subjecting our own agencies and policies to trade disputes and adjudication in international trade tribunals. We have already heard accusations in international commentaries by foreign finance ministers and central bankers that our own Fed has manipulated the value of the dollar to gain trade advantage.

If the Portman-Stabenow language is adopted into TPA and these rules become part of our trade agreements, how long do you think it will take for our trading partners to enter disputes and seek remedies against Federal Reserve quantitative easing policies? Not long, I’d imagine.

If the Portman-Stabenow objective becomes part of our trade agreements, we will undoubtedly see formal actions to impose sanctions on U.S. trade, under the guise that the Federal Reserve has manipulated our currency for trade advantage. We’ll also be hearing from other countries that Fed policy is causing instability in their financial markets and economies and, unless the Fed takes a different path, those countries could argue for relief or justify their own exchange-rate policies to gain some trade advantage for themselves.

While we may not agree with those allegations, the point is that, under the Portman-Stabenow formulation, judgments and verdicts on our policies will be taken out of our hands and, rather, can be rendered by international trade tribunals. . . .

Put simply, we cannot enforce rules against unfair exchange rate practices if we do not have information about them. Under the Portman-Stabenow Amendment, our trading partners are far more likely to engage in interventions in the shadows, hiding from detection out of fear that they could end up being subjected to trade sanctions.

Mr. President, for these reasons and others, the Portman-Stabenow Amendment is the wrong approach. Still, I do recognize that currency manipulation is a legitimate concern, and one that we need to address in a serious, thoughtful way.

Toward that end, Senator Wyden and I have filed an amendment that would expand on the currency negotiating objective that is already in the TPA bill to give our country more tools to address currency manipulation without the problems and risks that would come part and parcel with the Portman-Stabenow Amendment. . . .

Why are enforceable provisions against currency manipulation wrong? Because all of “international/WTO” trade law is based on reciprocity. What the United States can do to other countries, those countries can do back to the United States. In effect, if enforceable currency manipulation provisions had been included in the TPP, the United States could be hoisted by its own petard, killed by its own knife.

That is the reason Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Congressman Paul Ryan, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, are so concerned about currency manipulation. Currency manipulation is a negotiating objective as set forth in the TPA. But enforcing currency manipulation is a problem because there is no internationally accepted definition of currency manipulation. When the US Federal Reserve used quantitative easing in the last financial crisis, was that currency manipulation? Could other countries retaliate against the US for using quantitative easing? That is the fear of free traders. In international trade what goes around comes around.

Currency manipulation was include in the Trade Promotion Authority bill that was passed by Congress and signed into law, but there were no enforceable provisions. The specific provision in the TPA states in part:

“Foreign Currency Manipulation—The principal negotiating objective of the United States with respect to unfair currency practices is seek to establish accountability through enforceable rules, transparency, reporting, monitoring, cooperative mechanisms, or other means to address exchange rate manipulation involving protracted large scale intervention in one direction in the exchange markets and a persistently undervalued foreign exchange rate to gain an unfair competitive advantage in trade over other parties to a trade agreement consistent with existing obligations of the United States as a member of the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization.”

Emphasis added.

In the TPP Agreement, which was concluded in Atlanta, in a currency manipulation side deal, apparently the nations pledged not to devalue their currencies in such a way as to gain an edge on their competitors, but it will not have any enforcement provisions. Country representatives will meet at least once a year to discuss the commitments and to try to coordinate macroeconomic policies.

The specific details of the currency manipulation side agreement are still being negotiated so it is difficult to believe that Hilary Clinton has actually read the Agreement, when it has not been finalized yet.

The side agreement, however, apparently centers around three key commitments countries would undertake as part of this side deal. First, the TPP countries would commit to not devalue their currencies so as to make their exports cheaper. Second, they would upgrade the transparency of their respective monetary policies and decision-making. Finally, the countries would set up a multilateral forum to discuss exchange rate policies and broader macroeconomic issues.

It is not clear, however, how often officials would meet in this configuration, or at what level. Government sources, however, indicate that the TPP countries are very close to coming to an agreement on these points and are entering a technical review of the side deal.

On the day the TPP agreement was announced, Treasury released a joint statement by the TPP countries:

“We are pleased to announce today that we are working to strengthen macroeconomic cooperation, including on exchange rate issues, in appropriate fora. The work to be undertaken reflects our common interest in strengthening cooperation on macroeconomic policies, and will help to further macroeconomic stability in the TPP region as well as help ensure that the benefits of TPP are realized. Keeping in mind the diverse circumstances of the TPP countries, we are currently undertaking a technical review.”

On October 19, 2015, Treasury Secretary Lew stated that the TPP provides a “very powerful set of tools,” with tough provisions to get participating countries to “keep their word” on currency.

It is interesting to note that on Tuesday, September 22, 2015, in his Seattle speech, President Xi of China specifically agreed to a similar provision:

“We will stick to the purpose of our reform to have the exchange rate decided by market supply and demand and allow the RMB to float both ways. We are against competitive depreciation or a currency war. We will not lower the RMB exchange rate to boost exports. To develop the capital market and improve the market-based pricing of the RMB exchange, is the direction of our reform. This will not be changed by the recent fluctuation in the stock market.”

In other words, China has agreed to abide by the same currency manipulation deal struck in the TPP Agreement.

But that brings us to another problem, recently China allowed the Yuan to float and it lost 2 to 3% of its value and immediately the China critics in the United States cried currency manipulation. As stated above, the International Monetary Fund has already determined that the Chinese RMB is not undervalued. If anything, with the very difficult economic situation in China right now, the Chinese RMB may be overvalued. In fact, if Chinese RMB were actually floated on the market, there might be a sharp decline.

The natural economic course is for currencies to become weaker when economies become weaker. The IMF has already determined that China’s currency is not undervalued. But right now, China’s economy is going through a downturn.

“There’s still room for the renminbi to appreciate. Right now, there’s downward pressure on the renminbi. Some of it is as a result of the policies that they made and the way they announced them over the summer. We have to make sure that China understands that it’s very important that they need to keep their commitment to let the renminbi go up as well as down.”

On October 1, 2015, the Wall Street Journal on its front page, reported “A Painful Quarter for Markets” stated:

“Stocks had their worst quarter since 2011 amid growth worries as daily swings grew bigger as investors fretted over China while a commodity selloff [in part because of China] and rising junk-bond yields added to the anxiety.”

On October 7, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that “Chinese Central bank interventions” to shore up the yuan ate into China’s foreign-exchange reserves in September, stating.:

“The People’s Bank of China on Wednesday said currency reserves fell $43.3 billion in September to $3.51 trillion as more funds left the country, the fifth consecutive monthly drop but a less sharp one than the record $93.9 billion plunge the previous month. That came after the central bank first devalued the yuan in a mid-August surprise and then saw itself forced to step up selling of dollar assets, particularly U.S. Treasuries, to prevent a free fall in the currency. . . .”

On October 7th, the Wall Street Journal further reported that, “Once the Biggest Buyer, China Starts Dumping U.S. Government Debt Shift in Treasury holdings is latest symptom of emerging-market slowdown hitting global economy”. The Article states:

“Central banks around the world are selling U.S. government bonds at the fastest pace on record, the most dramatic shift in the $12.8 trillion Treasury market since the financial crisis.

Sales by China, Russia, Brazil and Taiwan are the latest sign of an emerging-markets slowdown that is threatening to spill over into the U.S. economy. Previously, all four were large purchasers of U.S. debt. . . .

In the past decade, large trade surpluses or commodity revenues permitted many emerging-market countries to accumulate large foreign-exchange reserves. Many purchased U.S. debt because the Treasury market is the most liquid and the U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency. . . .

But as global economic growth weakened, commodity prices slumped and the dollar rose in anticipation of expected Federal Reserve interest-rate increases, capital flowed out of emerging economies, forcing some central banks to raise cash to buy their local currencies.

In recent months, China’s central bank in particular has stepped up its selling of Treasuries. The People’s Bank of China surprised investors by devaluing the yuan on Aug. 11. The heavy selloff that followed—triggered by concerns that Beijing would permit more weakening of the yuan to help spur growth—caught officials at the central bank somewhat off guard, according to the people.

To contain the selloff, the PBOC has been buying yuan and selling dollars to prevent the yuan from weakening beyond around 6.40 per dollar. Internal estimates at the PBOC show that it spent between $120 billion and $130 billion in August alone in bolstering the yuan’s value, according to people close to the central bank.”

On October 20, 2015, it was reported that total capital outflows from China could have been as high as $850 billion from the start of 2015 to the end of September. This estimate assumes China has had to sell foreign exchange reserves ($329 billion until the end of September, mostly in U.S. Treasuries) to keep the exchange rate stable.

Does this sound like a country that is intentionally trying to undervalue its currency to get a competitive advantage? In fact, China is spending 100s of billions of dollars to prevent the exchange rate from falling by keeping its currency strong and not undercutting the dollar. Why? To keep up the standard of living of its people and to avoid the currency manipulation argument aimed at China by the United States.

Why is this important? Because as President Xi recently stated in Seattle, China is still a developing country and it has 100s of millions of people in poverty. As President Xi stated:

“At the same time, we are civilly-aware that China is still the world’s largest developing country. Our per capita GDP is only two-thirds that of global average and one-seventh that of the United States, ranking around 80th in the world. By China’s own standard, we still have over 70 million people living under the poverty line. If measured by world bank standard, the number would be more than 200 million. . . .”

President Xi went on to state that his focus has to be development and raising the standard of living for his people:

“I know that we must work still harder before all our people can live a better life. That explains why development remains China’s top priority. To anyone charged with the governance of China, their primary mission is to focus all the resources on improving people’s living standard and gradually achieve common prosperity.”

The bottom line is that the Chinese leadership knows that it is still a developing country and it needs the relationship with the US to continue to lift is population out of poverty. But China also knows that the US China relationship must be a win-win relationship in which the United States also benefits. That is the reason the US is exporting close $200 billion in exports to China.

On September 26, 2015, while in Beijing I went to a Supermarket in the Guomao, Business District of Beijing. The “Ole” supermarket chain was having a major sales event of US agricultural products, selling US pork, apples, potatoes, seafood, wine, cheese, grapes and raisins. The event was sponsored by USDA, US Commercial Service, US Pork Producers, US Meat, US raisins, Alaska Seafood, Washington Apples, US Potatoes, California Grapes and Raisins. I was the only foreigner in the supermarket and the checkout girls had little US flags on their lapel.

The US China Trade relationship is also why China was quickly willing to negotiate and come to agreement with the United States on Cyber Attacks and Currency manipulation. But willingness to negotiate and discuss the issues is not good enough for the protectionist forces in the United States.

DUMPING

But if cyber-attacks and currency manipulation do not work, the US press and politicians can always argue that the United States is a dumping ground for Chinese products. In fact, the United States presently has antidumping orders blocking more than $20 billion in imports from China, all based on fake numbers.

Dumping is generally defined as selling products in the United States at lower prices than in the home/China market or below the fully allocated cost of production. But as readers of this blog know, in contrast to almost every country in the World, including Iran, Syria, Russia, and Ukraine, the Commerce Department considers China to be a nonmarket economy country and refuses to look at actual prices and costs in China. Instead Commerce constructs a cost from consumption factors in China and multiplies those factors times surrogate values, which it obtains from import statistics in five to 10 different countries.

But those surrogate countries can change from preliminary to final determinations and from initial investigation to the multiple review investigations against Chinese products. In the Hardwood Plywood case, for example, Commerce used import statistics in Philippines in the Preliminary resulting in a 0% antidumping rate, and then in the final determination switched to import statistics in Bulgaria, resulting in a 57% antidumping rate. In a Mushrooms review investigation, Commerce switched from India, which it had used in more than five past review investigations, to Columbia and the rate went from single digits to over 400% because of surrogate values for cow manure and hay from Columbia Import statistics.

If you think about it, how much cow manure and hay is imported into Columbia. Because Commerce’s almost always relies on import statistics in one of the 5 to 10 different countries, it always uses inflated surrogate values because imports by definition must be higher priced than the domestic product. By using hyper-inflated surrogate values, it is always easy to find dumping rates against China, but they are not based on reality.

With regards to Countervailing Duty orders against China, Commerce refuses to use benchmark prices in China to value the subsidies. As explained more below, this refusal along with the Commerce Department’s decision that every raw material product supplied by every state-owned company is subsidized, has led to a major loss for the United States at the WTO overturning dozens of Commerce Department CVD determinations for violations of the WTO’s Countervailing Duty Agreement.

More importantly, US importers pay antidumping and countervailing duties, not Chinese companies, and when antidumping and countervailing duties go up in administrative review investigations, US importers are retroactively liable for the difference plus interest. Thus an importer can wake up one morning when an antidumping rate has gone from 0 to 157% and owe millions in retroactive antidumping duties to the US government. But since Commerce does not use real prices and costs in China and can switch from surrogate country to surrogate country, the Chinese companies cannot know whether they are dumping and what the rate will be and neither can the US importers. Thus the Commerce Department fiction exposes US importers to potentially millions of dollars in retroactive liability through no fault of the importer. Thus, when antidumping and countervailing duty orders are issued against China, over time all imports of the specific product stop because importers are scared of the huge risk that could bankrupt their company if they import under an antidumping or countervailing duty order against China.

But the real problem with these three attacks on China is that it encourages a mindset among US producers and US workers of Globalization/International Trade Victimhood, which corrodes the competitive spirit. This phrase was not coined by me, but by the Mid Atlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance Center, which uses the term in a video about how four US companies used the TAA for Companies program to save their business — http://mataac.org/howitworks/.

Moreover, we have a perfect experiment/example to make this point—the US steel industry. This Industry has had some form of protection from steel imports under US antidumping and countervailing duty laws and other trade statutes for 40 years. Is the Steel industry thriving? Is it expanding with all the protection from imports that it has received? No, the industry continues to decline even though US Steel companies and the Unions have spent tens of millions of dollars in legal fees and to keep political pressure up on Congress and the Government.

When I first started work at the International Trade Commission in 1980, there were numerous large steel companies with production operations all over the United States, including Bethlehem Steel, Jones & Laughlin and Lone Star Steel. Those companies had 40 years of protection from steel imports, but that did not stop the decline of the industry.

But what the Steel industry and the Union wants and Congress is prepared to give is more protection from steel and other imports by making it easier to bring antidumping and countervailing duty cases and win them at Commerce and the ITC. The decision apparently is let’s simply build the protectionist walls higher. The scary point is that in many ways the US Steel industry and the Unions have an inordinate impact on US trade policy because of their power in the Democratic party.

But the crown jewels of US manufacturing are not the Steel Industry, but the US High Tech industry, which is among the most efficient in the World. As the Democratic opposition to the TPP indicates, many Democrats in Congress are willing to sacrifice the very successful new High Tech industry, which employs numerous workers, for the benefit of the much older and smaller US Steel industry when the total employment in the US Steel industry is less than one high tech company!

What is the answer to this import problem? Not more protection. Instead, I firmly believe the answer lies in the small program—the TAA for Companies (also called TAA for Firms or TAAF). This is a $12 million program, which helps small and medium size business (SMEs) and helps them adjust to import competition. The Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (“NWTAAC”), which I have been working with, has an 80% survival rate since 1984, which is certainly a much higher survival rate than US antidumping and countervailing duty cases. If you save the company, you save the jobs that go with the company and all the tax revenue paid into the Federal, State and Local governments. This is the Transformative Power of TAA for Companies. TAA for Companies does not cost the government money. It makes money for the government.

Recently, I have learned that sometimes larger companies through this program can obtain access to more funds to help them adjust and get out of Globalization /International Trade victimhood. The Congress supplies $450 million to retrain workers in the TAA for Workers program, but only $12 million to help the companies adjust. But if you save the company, you save the jobs that go with that company.

Moreover, the TAA video, http://mataac.org/howitworks/, describes one US company, which uses steel as an input, and was getting smashed by Chinese imports. After getting into the program, not only did the company become prosperous and profitable, it is now exporting products to China. This is the transformative power of TAA for Companies and the more important point of changing the mindset from Globalization/International Trade victimhood of US companies and workers so that they become internationally competitive in the World market.

All US antidumping and other trade cases can do is slow the decline in an industry. The only program that cures the disease is the TAA for Companies program . As Ronald Reagan predicted in his attached 1986 speech, BETTER COPY REAGAN IT SPEECH, the problem with antidumping and countervailing duty cases is that they do not work and they invite retaliation:

Sometimes foreign governments adopt unfair tariffs or quotas and subsidize their own industries or take other actions that give firms an unfair competitive edge over our own businesses. On those occasions, it’s been very important for the United States to respond effectively, and our administration hasn’t hesitated to act quickly and decisively. . . .

But I think you all know the inherent danger here. A foreign government raises an unfair barrier; the United States Government is forced to respond. Then the foreign government retaliates; then we respond, and so on. The pattern is exactly the one you see in those pie fights in the old Hollywood comedies: Everything and everybody just gets messier and messier. The difference here is that it’s not funny. It’s tragic. Protectionism becomes destructionism; it costs jobs.

Blaming international trade and other countries and bringing trade case does not solve the business problems of these companies. All the trade cases do is slow the decline and prolong the agony, because the company and the workers have not changed their mindset.

One Economic Development Council here in Washington State has the motto Compete Every Day, with Every One in Every Country Forever. That is the type of mindset that turns companies around. That is the type of mindset TAA for Companies promotes, not US Antidumping and Countervailing Duty laws.

IMPORT ALLIANCE FOR AMERICA

This is also why the Import Alliance for America is so important for US importers and US end user companies. The real targets of antidumping and countervailing duty laws are not Chinese companies. The real targets are US companies, which import products into the United States from China and use raw materials in downstream production process.

There are approximately 130 antidumping and countervailing duty orders against various products from China, but approximately 80 of the orders cover raw material inputs, such as chemicals, metals and steel, which are used in downstream production. Through these orders we spread the Globalization victimhood disease affecting the upstream industry to the higher value added, higher profit downstream industries because the downstream companies cannot compete with Chinese and other foreign companies that have access to the lower cost raw materials.

As mentioned in prior newsletters, we are working with APCO, a well-known lobbying/government relations firm in Washington DC, on establishing a US importers/end users lobbying coalition to lobby against the expansion of US China Trade War and the antidumping and countervailing duty laws against China for the benefit of US companies.

On September 18, 2013, ten US Importers agreed to form the Import Alliance for America. The objective of the Coalition will be to educate the US Congress and Administration on the damaging effects of the US China trade war, especially US antidumping and countervailing duty laws, on US importers and US downstream industries.

See the Import Alliance website at http://www.importallianceforamerica.com.

We will be targeting two major issues—working for market economy treatment for China in 2016 as provided in the US China WTO Agreement for the benefit of importers and downstream companies and working against retroactive liability for US importers. The United States is the only country that has retroactive liability for its importers in antidumping and countervailing duty cases.

On November 17 and 18, 2015, importers in the Alliance will be meeting Congressmen and Congressional Trade Staff in Washington DC to discuss these issues. See the attached announcement. FINAL IAFA_November2015_Flyer The Alliance welcomes all US importers and downstream companies, If you are interested in this effort, please feel free to contact the Import Alliance or myself directly.

IMPRESSIONS OF CHINESE PRESIDENT XI’S TRIP TO THE US—VIEWS FROM BEIJING

During most of September I was in China, and in Beijing during the key week of September 21 to 26th. Watching the US press and listening to US politicians in Washington DC during President Xi’s visit as compared to the Press in China was like watching people on different planets. In the United States, news outlets and politicians were very bellicose, very cynical, and expecting China simply to trick the US and out negotiate them. Shades of Donald Trump. In direct and distinct contrast, China was having a love fest with the United States.

In the United States, especially before and after the Washington DC trip, commentators and newspapers attacked China on cyber-hacking, currency manipulation, foreign policy and every other rock that could be thrown at China.

During that same week that President Xi was in China, Chinese speaking television was running a TV series to every day Chinese, somewhat like Roots, entitled Life and Death Commitment. The series was about how during the War against Japan, which became the Second World War, 100s if not 1,000s of Chinese peasants gave their lives to protect a specific American Flying Tiger pilot that had been shot down. The series showed entire villages and families executed by the Japanese for refusing to reveal the whereabouts of the American pilot. What made the series so powerful is that it is based on a true story.

I realized how powerful an impact this series was having on Chinese people because on Friday September 25th while climbing a mountain at the Red Snail Temple outside Beijing with a Group of Chinese, at a pavilion we ran into a Chinese peasant looking for plastic bottles. He immediately asked the Chinese in my Group, where is the foreigner from. They answered United States and he got excited and said “Flying Tiger”.

As President Xi mentioned in his Seattle speech, China will not forget the sacrifice of American lives in World War 2 against Germany and Japan. Even before World War 2, however, there were many examples of the United States coming to the aide of China. In the early 1900s, the United States was the only foreign country to pay China back for money paid as reparations by the Chinese government as a result of the Boxer rebellion. The US used the Chinese reparations money to establish a famous Chinese university and hospital in Beijing and send Chinese to study in the US. In other words, based on history, the Chinese truly like Americans, and that is a fundamental reason and basis for future US/China cooperation.

In contrast, I was told by one Chinese that Russia and China simply use each other. There is no trust between China and Russia. In the early 1950, because Chairman Mao refused to follow the commands of Joseph Stalin, Russia pulled out of China, destroying all the instruction books to the machinery, rail cars and other products provided to China. That action plus the Great Leap Forward led to a famine in China in which millions died. Chinese do not forget.

In contrast to Washington DC, high tech companies and businessmen in Washington State were very welcoming to President Xi, listening to his every word, because for Washington State China is its largest export market with $20 billion in exports every year to China and that is not just Boeing airplanes.

US High tech companies are making billions in China selling their products and consumer technology to China. Qualcomm’s income was $10 billion with $5 billion coming from China. On the plane to China, I sat next to a Marketing official from a large high tech company that was selling touch screen products to China. He told me that he was on the plane to China every other week.

While in China, on the CCTV English channel I saw one US Administration official stating that we see the US China relationship is “too big to fail”. At least someone in the US government and Obama Administration understands the importance of the US China relationship. In the Bush Administration, Treasury Secretary Paulson stated that he believed the US China relationship was the most important economic relationship in the World.

During my trip to Beijing, Chinese English TV was following the President Xi trip closely putting specific emphasis on the dialogue between the United States. I became convinced that China truly believes in a Win Win situation for China and the United States and that is not just a slogan.

Before President Xi’s trip to China, one article featured a panda and Uncle Sam walking arm and arm together. On September 27, the Chinese Global Times reported on the front page:

China and the US have agreed to continue building a new model for major country relationship based on mutual cooperation. . . .Aside from agreeing to build a new model for major-country relationship, the two countries said they would maintain close communication and exchanges at all levels, further expand practical cooperation at bilateral, regional and global levels and manage differences to a constructive way to achieve new concrete results in Sino-US relations. . . .

Another article in the Global Times urged the United States to reciprocate China’s goodwill. But the cynicism of many in the US press and US politicians seemed to undercut much of the Chinese goodwill.

President Xi’s US trip started well in Seattle. On Tuesday, September 22, 2015, at a speech in Seattle, Henry Kissinger introduced President Xi by stating that his vision of a Win Win scenario, which emphasizes the economic interdependence of China and the United States based on mutual interests and importance of the economic development of the other country was very important. Kissinger specifically stated that partnership between two potential advisories can replace antagonism between them.

As President Xi further indicated in his speech, he understands how important the US China relationship is and his government will do everything in their power to maintain it. President Xi specifically stated in Seattle:

. . . Washington is the leading state in U.S. exports to China and China is the No. 1 trading partner of the Port of Seattle. Washington and Seattle have become an important symbol of the friendship between Chinese and American people and the win-win cooperation between the two countries. As the Chinese saying goes, the fire burns high when everyone brings wood to it. It is the love and care and hard work of the national governments, local authorities, friendly organizations, and people from all walks of life in those countries that have made China-U.S. relations flourish. . . .

Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends. Since the founding of the People’s Republic, especially since the beginning of reform and opening up, China has set out on an extraordinary journey. The Chinese of my generation have had some first-hand experience. Toward the end of the 1960s, when I was in my teens, I was sent from Beijing to work as a peasant in a small village, where I spent seven years. At that time, the villagers and I lived in earth caves and slept on earth beds. Life was very hard. There was no meat in our diet for months. . . .

At the spring festival earlier this year, I returned to the village. It was a different place now. I saw black top roads. Now living in houses with bricks and tiles, the villagers had Internet access. Elderly folks had basic old-age care, and all villagers had medical care coverage. Children were in school. Of course, meat was readily available. This made me kindly aware that the Chinese dream is, after all, a dream of the people.

We can fulfill the Chinese dream only when we link it with our people’s yearning for a better life.

What has happened in [my village] is but a microcosm of the progress China has made through reform and opening up. In a little more than three decades, we have turned China into the world’s second largest economy, lifted 1.3 billion people from a life of chronic shortage, and brought them initial prosperity and unprecedented rights and dignity.

This is not only a great change in the lives of the Chinese people, but also a huge step forward in human civilization, and China’s major contribution to world peace and development.

At the same time, we are civilly-aware that China is still the world’s largest developing country. Our per capita GDP is only two-thirds that of global average and one-seventh that of the United States, ranking around 80th in the world. By China’s own standard, we still have over 70 million people living under the poverty line. If measured by world bank standard, the number would be more than 200 million. . . .

During the past two years, I have been to many poor areas in China and visited many poor families. I wouldn’t forget the look in their eyes longing for distant, happy life.

I know that we must work still harder before all our people can live a better life. That explains why development remains China’s top priority. To anyone charged with the governance of China, their primary mission is to focus all the resources on improving people’s living standard and gradually achieve common prosperity. To this end, we have proposed the two centenary goals mentioned by Dr. Kissinger, namely to double the 2010 GDP and per capita income of the Chinese and complete the building of a moderately prosperous society by 2020 and to build a prosperous, strong, democratic … harmonious, modernist socialist country that realizes the great renew of the Chinese nation by the middle of the century.

Whatever we do now is aimed at fulfilling these goals. To succeed in completing the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects, we must comprehensively deepen reform, advance the law-based governance, and apply strict … discipline. That is what our proposed 4-pronged strategy is all about. . . .

China’s economy will stay on a steady course with fairly fast growth. The Chinese economy is still operating within a proper range. It grew by 7 percent in the first half of this year, and this growth rate remains one of highest in world. It has not come by easily, given the complex and volatile situation in world economy. At present, all economies are facing difficulties, and our economy is also under downward pressure. But this is only a problem in the course of progress. It will take … steps to achieve stable growth, deepen reform, adjust structure, improve livelihood, and prevent risks while strengthening and innovating macro-regulation to keep the growth at medium-to-high rate.

Currently, China is continuing to move forward in this new type of industrialization, digitalization, urbanization, and agricultural modernization. With a high savings rate, a huge consumption potential, a hard working population, and a rising proportion of middle income people — now we have 300 million middle income earnings in China — China enjoys enormous space … to grow in terms of market size and potential. China will focus more on improving the quality and efficiency of economic growth, and accelerating the shift of growth model and adjustment in economic structure. I will lay greater emphasis on innovation and consumption-driven growth — in this way, we will solve the problem of unbalanced, uncoordinated, and unsustainable development, and enable the Chinese economy to successfully transform itself and maintain strong momentum of growth.

Recent abnormal ups and downs in China’s stock market has caused wide concern. Stock prices fluctuating accordance with your inherent laws and it is the duty of the government to ensure an open, fair, and just market order and prevent massive panic from happening. This time, the Chinese government took steps to stabilize the market and contain panic in the stock market, and thus avoided the systemic risk. Mature markets in various countries have tried similar approaches. Now, China’s stock market has reached the phase of self-recovery, and self-adjustment.

On the 11th of August, China moved to improve its RMB central parity quotation mechanism, giving the market a greater role in determining the exchange rates. Our efforts have achieved initial success in correcting the exchange rate deviation. Given the economic and financial situation at home and abroad, there is no basis for continuous depreciation of the RMB. We will stick to the purpose of our reform to have the exchange rate decided by market supply and demand and allow the RMB to float both ways. We are against competitive depreciation or a currency war. We will not lower the RMB exchange rate to boost export. To develop the capital market and improve the market-based pricing of the RMB exchange, is the direction of our reform. This will not be changed by the recent fluctuation in the stock market.

The key to China’s development lies in reform. Our reform is aimed at modernizing the country’s governance system, and governance capabilities so that the market can play a decisive role in the allocation of resources. The government can play a better role and there is faster progress in building the socialist market economy, democracy, advanced culture, harmonious society, and soundly environment. . . .

We have the results and guts to press ahead, and take reform forward. We will stick to the direction of market economy reform and continue to introduce bold and result-oriented reform measures concerning the market, taxation, finance, investment and financing, pricing, opening up, and people’s livelihood.

China will never close its open door to the outside world. Opening up is a basic state policy of China. Its policies that attract foreign investment will not change, nor will its pledge to protect legitimate rights and interests of foreign investors in China, and to improve its services for foreign companies operating in China. We respect the international business norms and practice of non-discrimination, observe the …principle of national treatment commitment, treat all market players — including foreign-invested companies — fairly, and encourage transnational corporations to engage in all forms of cooperation with Chinese companies.

We will address legitimate concerns of foreign investors in timely fashion, protect their lawful rights and interests, and work hard to provide an open and transparent legal and policy environment, an efficient administrative environment, and a level playing field in the market, with a special focus on IPR protection so as to broaden the space of cooperation between China and the United States and other countries.

China will follow the basic strategy of the rule of law in governance. Law is the very foundation of governance. We will coordinate our efforts to promote the rule of law in governance and administration, for the building of the country, the government and society on solid basis of the rule of law, build greater trust in judicial system, and ensure that human rights are respected and effectively upheld. China will give fair treatment to foreign institutions and foreign companies in the country’s legislative, executive, and judicial practices. We are ready to discuss rule of law issues with the U.S. side in the spirit of mutual learning for common progress.

China is a staunch defender of cybersecurity. It is also a victim of hacking. The Chinese government will not, in whatever form, engage in commercial thefts or encourage or support such attempts by anyone. Both commercial cyber theft and hacking against government networks are crimes that must be punished in accordance with law and relevant international treaties. The international community should, on the basis of mutual respect and mutual trust, work together to build a peaceful, secure, open, and cooperative cyberspace. China is ready to set up a high-level joint dialogue mechanism with United States on fighting cyber crimes. . . .

China will continuing fighting corruption. As I once said, one has to be very strong if he wants to strike the iron. The blacksmith referred to here is the Chinese communist party. The fundamental aim of the party is to serve the people’s heart and soul. The party now has over 87 million members and unavoidably, it has problems of one kind or another. If we let these problems go unchecked we will risk losing the trust and support of the people. That is why we demand strict enforcement of party discipline as the top priority of governance. In our vigorous campaign against corruption, we have punished both tigers and flies —corrupt official — irrespective of ranking, in response to our people’s demand. This has nothing to do with power struggle. In this case, there is no House of Cards. . . .

China will keep to the path of peaceful development. We have just celebrated the 70th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese people’s resistance against Japanese aggression and the world anti-fascist war.

An important lesson history teaches us is that peaceful development is the right path, while any attempt to seek domination or hegemony through force is against the historical trend and doomed to failure.

The Chinese recognized as early as 2,000 years ago that though a country is now strong, bellicosity will lead to its ruin. China’s defense policy is defensive in nature and its military strategy features active defense. Let me reiterate here that no matter how developed it could become, China will never seek hegemony or engage in expansion.

To demonstrate our commitment to peaceful development, I announced not long ago that the size of China’s military will be cut by 300,000. China is ready to work with other countries to build a new type of international relations with win-win cooperation at its core, replacing confrontation and domination with win-win cooperation and adopting a new thinking of building partnerships so as to jointly open a new vista of common development and shared security.

As far as the existing international system is concerned, China has been a participant, builder, and contributor. We stand firmly for the international order and system that is based on the purposes and principles of the UN charter. . . .

China has benefitted from the international community and development, and China has in turn made its contribution to global development. Our Belt and Road initiative, our establishment of the Silk Road fund, and our proposal to set up the AAIB, are all aimed at helping the common development of all countries, rather than seeking some kind of spheres of political influence. The Belt and Road initiative is open and inclusive; we welcome participation of the U.S. and other countries, and international organizations.

We have vigorously promoted economic integration in the Asia Pacific and the Free Trade area of the Asia Pacific in particular because we want to facilitate the shaping of a free, open, convenient, and dynamic space for development in the Asia Pacific. We … for an outlook of common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security because we want to work with other countries in the region and the rest of the international community to maintain peace and security in the Asia Pacific.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends. In our Sunnylands meeting in 2013, President Obama and I reached the important agreement to jointly build a new model of major country relationship between the two countries.

This was a major strategic choice we made together on the basis of historical experience, our respective national conditions and the prevailing trend of world. Over past two years and more, the two sides have acted in accordance, with the agreement steadily moving forward by actual coordination and cooperation in various fields, and made important progress. We worked hand-in-hand to cope with aftermath of international financial crisis and promoted global economic recovery. We deepened pragmatic exchanges and cooperation in all fields, which brought about tangible benefits to the two people’s. Last year, actual trade, two-way investment stock, and total number of personnel exchanges all hit a record high. . . .

As an old Chinese saying goes, peaches and plums do not talk, yet a path is formed beneath them. These worthy fruits of cooperation across the Pacific Ocean speaks eloquently to the vitality and potential of China-U.S. relations.

This leads to the question: What shall we do to advance the new model of major country relationship between China and the U.S. from a new starting point and how we can work together to promote world peace and development. The answer is to stick to the right direction of such a new model of relationship and make gradual, solid progress.

An ancient Chinese said, after taking into account the past, the future, and the normal practices, a decision can be made.

A number of things are particularly important for our efforts. First, we must read each other’s strategic intentions correctly. Building a new model of major country relationship with the United States that features no confrontation, no conflicts, mutual respect and willing cooperation is the priority of China’s foreign policy. We want to deepen mutual understanding with the U.S. on each other’s strategic orientation and development path. We want to see more understanding and trust; less estrangement and suspicion in order to … misunderstanding and miscalculation.

We should strictly base our judgment on facts, lest we become victim to hearsay, paranoid, or self-imposed bias. … Should major countries time and again make the mistakes of strategic miscalculation, they might create such traps for themselves.

Second, we must firmly advance win-win cooperation. Cooperation is the only right choice to bring about benefits, but cooperation requires mutual accommodation of each other’s interest and concerns, and the quest of the great common ground of converging interest. If China and the U.S. cooperate well, they can become a bedrock of global stability and a booster of world peace. Should they enter into conflict or confrontation, it would lead to disaster for both countries and the world at large.

The areas where we should and can cooperate are very broad. For instance, we should help improve the global governance mechanism and work together to promote sustained growth of world economy and maintain stability in the global financial market.

We should conclude as soon as possible a balanced and high quality BIT, deepen the building of a new type of mill-to-mill relations, expand pragmatic cooperation on clean energy and environmental protection, strengthen exchanges in law enforcement, anti-corruption, health, and local affairs, and tap the corporation potential in infrastructural development. We should deepen communication and cooperation at the United Nations A-PEC, G-20, and other multi-electoral mechanisms, as well as our major international and regional issues and global challenges so as to make a bigger contribution to world peace, stability, and prosperity.

Third, we must manage our differences properly and effectively. As a Chinese saying goes, the sun and moon shine in different ways yet their brightness is just right for the day and night, respectively. It is precisely because of so many differences that the world has become such a diverse and colorful place, and that the need to broaden common ground and iron out differences has become so important. A perfect, pure world is non-existent, since disagreements are a reality people have to live with. China and the U.S. do not see eye to-eye on every issue and it is unavoidable that we may have different positions on some issues. What matters is how to manage the differences and what matters most is that we should respect each other, seek common ground while reserving differences, take a constructive approach to understanding … and spare no effort to turn differences into areas of cooperation.

Fourth, we must foster friendly sentiments among the peoples. People-to-people relations underpin state-to state relations. Though geographically far apart, our peoples boast a long history of friendly exchanges.

Some 230 years ago, Empress of China, a U.S. merchant ship, sailed across the vast oceans to the shores of China. Some 150 years ago, tens of thousands of Chinese workers joined their American counterparts in building the Transcontinental Pacific Railway. Some 30 years ago, China and the United States, as allies in World War II, fought shoulder-to-shoulder to defend world peace and justice. In that war, thousands of American soldiers laid down their precious lives for the just cause of the Chinese people.

We will never forget the moral support and invaluable assistance the American people gave to our just resistance against aggression and our struggle for freedom and independence. The Chinese people have always held American entrepreneurship and creativity in high regards. . . .

I believe it’s always important to make an effort to get deep a understanding of the cultures and civilizations that are different from our own. The Chinese character Ren, or people, is in a shape of two strokes supporting each other. The foundation of the China-U.S. friendship has its roots in the people and its future rests with the youth. . . .

Ladies and gentlemen. Dr. Kissinger wrote in his book, World Order, that, and I quote, each generation will be judged by whether the greatest and most consequential issues of the human condition have been faced.

And Martin Luther King said, ‘the time is always right to do the right thing. Today we have come once again to a historical juncture. Let us work together to bring about an even better future for China-U.S. relations and make an even greater contribution the happiness of our two people’s and well-being of the world.”

After Seattle, President Xi flew to Washington DC. Although Washington State is not wallowing in international trade victimhood, Washington DC is not Washington State. Just as President Xi Jinping arrived in Washington DC, John Brinkley at Forbes illustrated the hard line on China stating:

Xi Jinping In Washington: No Glad Tidings From The East

WASHINGTON — It’s hard to recall a visit to Washington by a head of state that has aroused as much apprehension and preoccupation as that of Chinese President Xi Jinping, who arrived here Thursday night.

Given the abundance of requests and demands that await him here, you might expect him to be wearing a red suit and a long white beard. But Xi has not come bearing gifts.

Issue No. 1 for the Obama administration is Chinese hacking.

China is the most prolific source of cyber-attacks against the U.S. government and business sector and it costs the U.S. economy billions of dollars every year, according to FBI Director James Comey. Xi has expressed a willingness to combat it, but he denies that his government has anything to do with it. He says China too is a victim of cyber-attacks.

Maybe so, but that’s like saying Microsoft is threatened by Atari.

Last Spring, Chinese hackers broke into the U.S. General Services Administration’s servers and stole Social Security numbers, fingerprints and other identifying data on about 4 million current and former government employees.

President Obama is incensed about this and is expected to read the riot act to Xi. Given the pervasiveness of the problem, though, even Xi’s best efforts are not going to solve it or even make a dent in it anytime soon.

China also leads the world in counterfeiting of consumer products and intellectual property theft. It accounts for 50% to 80% of all IP theft from the United States, according to the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property.

Since arriving in Seattle on Tuesday, Xi has been getting an earful about this and he’ll get more when he comes to Washington, D.C. . . .

China recently devalued its currency, the renminbi, against the dollar and that caused the American anti-trade camp to scream bloody murder. They said it was a blatant ploy to make Chinese exports to the U.S. cheaper and U.S. exports to China more expensive. A gazillion American jobs would be lost as a result.

They couldn’t have been more wrong. Xi said in a speech in Seattle on Tuesday that the renminbi had been devalued “in order to stabilize the market and contain panic in the stock market,” not to increase exports. “We are against competitive depreciation or a currency war,” he said. “We will not lower the RMB exchange rate to boost exports.” We should take him at his word.

China’s human rights performance continues to be deplorable, but Xi doesn’t seem willing to acknowledge this. His predecessors, when criticized about human rights violations, usually said: mind your own business. Xi’s rhetoric has not been much of an improvement. In Seattle, he said the government would “ensure that human rights are respected and effectively upheld.” Isn’t that comforting? . . . .

One might expect a meeting between the leaders of the world’s two largest economies to produce some tangible outcomes. Don’t bet on it. More likely, they’ll say they had “frank and fruitful” discussions, made “good progress” (isn’t all progress good?), and agreed on “a way forward.”

Making measurable progress on cyber-attacks and intellectual property theft will take years, maybe decades.

Unlike other heads of state, Xi considers his country to be America’s equal. So, he won’t be cowing to Obama or expressing contrition.

On the bright side, Xi is hell-bent on stamping out corruption in his government. That might be a better reason for hope than anything that might transpire during his two days in Washington.

The Brinkley Article was followed by strong US press attacks on the Cyber Agreement between the US and China. On September 26, 2015, the International New York Times in an Editorial stated as follows:

DOUBLE TALK FROM CHINA

The Xi government has a long way to go in protecting the rights of foreign companies and fighting cybercrime. . . .

Chinese officials are believed to be behind some of the .many cyberattacks against American companies and government agencies. Some of these hackers clearly work for the government and are stealing corporate secrets to help Chinese companies, American officials and cybersecurity experts say. Mr Xi’s government denies that it is involved in the attacks.

Aside from cybersecurity issues, the Xi government has also proposed regulations that could make it impossible for American technology companies to operate there. They would be forced to store data about Chinese customers in China and provide the Chinese government backdoor access to their systems and encrypted communications.

Mr. Xi and his officials need to realize that trade and investment has to be a two-way street. Many Chinese firms are trying to expand by acquiring companies, real estate and other assets in the United States and elsewhere. But if the Xi government continues to put up roadblocks to foreign companies, China cannot expect the-rest of the world to open its doors to more investment without reciprocity.

On September 27, 2015, the Wall Street Journal stated in an editorial:

The Obama-Xi Cyber Mirage

A digital arms deal that is full of promises but no enforcement.

Not long before Xi Jinping’s state visit to Washington last week, the Obama Administration leaked that it might sanction Chinese companies and individuals for digitally plundering U.S. trade secrets and intellectual property. That followed an April executive order that declared “significant malicious cyber-enabled activities” to be a “national emergency” punishable by visa bans, asset freezes and other means.

“We’re not going to just stand by while these threats grow,” one Administration official told the Washington Post at the time. “If you think you can just hide behind borders and leap laws and carry out your activities, that’s just not going to be the case.”

Well, never mind. On Friday Presidents Xi and Obama announced a new cyber-agreement that is supposed to put the unpleasantness to rest. A White House fact sheet notes that both sides agreed that “neither country’s government will conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, including trade secrets or other confidential business information, with the intent of providing competitive advantages to companies or commercial sectors.”

Other steps include information exchanges; legal cooperation in investigating cybercrimes “in a manner consistent with their respective national laws”; a “high-level joint dialogue mechanism” with regularly scheduled meetings; a “hotline for the escalation of issues”; and a U.N.-influenced effort to “further identify and promote appropriate norms of state behavior in cyberspace.”

All of this is an elaborate way of saying that the two sides agreed to nothing. Though Mr. Obama hailed the deal for creating “architecture to govern behavior in cyberspace that is enforceable and clear,” it transparently is neither. Mr. Xi still insists that his government “does not engage in theft of commercial secrets in any form,” or encourage Chinese companies to do so, as he told The Wall Street Journal last week. So what’s the problem?

As for enforceability, the line about abiding by “respective national laws” gives the game away. In China the Communist Party is by definition above the law, as are the companies and entities it controls. If Mr. Xi won’t admit to the problem, his minions won’t either. Knowing this, U.S. officials will also be reluctant to disclose much of what they know about Chinese cyber-espionage abuses lest they compromise U.S. sources and methods.

All of this means the Chinese are unlikely to be deterred from engaging in the kind of cybertheft that has served them so well, such as the 2007 hack of one of the military contractors building the F-35 fighter jet, which allowed the Chinese to develop the copycat J-20 and J-31 stealth planes. Other victims of suspected Chinese cyberespionage include Canada’s once-giant Nortel Networks, which was driven into bankruptcy in 2009 partly due to the hacking, as well as media companies like Bloomberg and this newspaper.

The agreement gives Mr. Xi the opportunity to play the diplomatic games China has specialized in for years regarding the South China Sea, known to Beijing-watchers as “talk and take.” In the South China version, Beijing has become adept at negotiating endlessly with its Asian neighbors over disputed claims and codes of conduct—all while seizing control of disputed reefs, building islands, and interfering in maritime traffic. To adapt Clausewitz, diplomacy for the Chinese is the continuation of cyberespionage by other means.

The agreement also ignores China’s cyberassaults on U.S. government targets, such as last year’s mega-hack of the Office of Personnel Management. Washington may have good reasons not to codify principles that would prohibit the U.S. from responding to such an attack, but if so it would be good to know if the Administration is forgiving the OPM hack.

In his press conference with Mr. Xi, Mr. Obama said the U.S. would use sanctions and “whatever other tools we have in our tool kit to go after cybercriminals, either retrospectively or prospectively.” But nearly seven years into his Presidency, Mr. Obama isn’t famous for follow through.

The cyber accord looks like another case of Mr. Obama claiming an imaginary moral high ground that sounds tough but is likely to be unenforceable. Expect more digital theft until Beijing pays a price for it, presumably in a future U.S. Administration.

But on September 29, 2015, in response to specific questions from Senator Manchin in the Senate Armed Services Committee, James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, testified that China cyber- attacks to obtain information on weapon systems are not cyber- crime. It is cyber espionage, which the United States itself engages in. As Dr. Clapper stated both countries, including the United States, engage in cyber espionage and “we are pretty good at it.” Dr. Clapper went on to state that “people in glass houses” shouldn’t throw stones. See http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/15-09-29-united-states-cybersecurity-policy-and-threats at 1 hour 8 minutes to 10 minutes.

In response to a question from Senator Ayotte, Director Clapper also specifically admitted that the attack on OPM and theft of US government employee data is state espionage and not commercial activity, which the US also engages in. See above hearing at 1 hour 18 and 19 minutes. This illustrates the hypocrisy of much of the political attacks on China regarding cyber-attack on OPM, which are based on incorrect definitions as set down by the US government itself.

Senator McCain stated that he was astonished by Director Clapper’s statements. What is astonishing is the at Senior Senators, such as John McCain, which have engaged in relentless attacks on China, do not know the specific policy of the United States government.

During the same hearing, in response to questions from Senator Hirano of Hawaii, Administration officials stated that the Cyber Agreement with China will be very helpful if the Chinese government live up to it. As Senator Hirano stated, now we have an agreement between the US and China to talk about it. The officials stated that the Agreement is a confidence building measure because it requires annual meetings at the very high ministerial level between the United States and China at which the US Attorney General and Head of Homeland Security will participate. In other words, according to Administration officials this is a good first step.

What does this mean? It means that the US government never asked China for a comprehensive agreement to stop cyber hacking, because the US government is engaged in cyber espionage too and “we are pretty good at it. . . . People in glass houses…”. The US government may have already hacked the Chinese government and obtained all the personal information on their government workers. We simply do not and cannot know.

But more importantly, the US government did not request the Chinese government to agree to stop all cyber-attacks on the US government. What the US Government did demand on the threat of economic sanctions was for the Chinese government to stop cyber-attacks on commercial interests, including the theft of intellectual property. The Chinese government agreed, not only because of the threats of economic sanctions but also because they realize how important the US China economic/trade relationship is for China, the Chinese people and the entire World. This Agreement is not just a President Xi face saving gesture. The Chinese government and people understand how important the US China economic relationship is, even if many in the US Congress and US government do not understand the reality of the situation.

What did the Chinese government specifically agree to do on Cyber crime?

On September 24-25, 2015, President Barack Obama hosted President Xi Jinping of China for a State visit. The two heads of state exchanged views on a range of global, regional, and bilateral subjects. President Obama and President Xi agreed to work together to constructively manage our differences and decided to expand and deepen cooperation in the following areas: . . .

Cybersecurity

The United States and China agree that timely responses should be provided to requests for information and assistance concerning malicious cyber activities. Further, both sides agree to cooperate, in a manner consistent with their respective national laws and relevant international obligations, with requests to investigate cybercrimes, collect electronic
evidence, and mitigate malicious cyber activity emanating from their territory. Both sides also agree to provide updates on the status and results of those investigation to the other side, as appropriate.

o The United States and China agree that neither country’s government will conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, including trade secrets or other confidential business information, with the intent of providing competitive advantages to companies or commercial sectors.

o Both sides are committed to making common effort to further identify and promote appropriate norms of state behavior in cyberspace within the international community. The United States and China welcome the July 2015 report of the UN Group of Governmental Experts in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of
International security, which addresses norms of behavior and other crucial issues for international security in cyberspace. The two sides also agree to create a senior experts group for further discussions on this topic.

o The United States and China agree to establish a high-level joint dialogue mechanism on fighting cybercrime and related issues. China will designate an official at the ministerial level to be the lead and the Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of State Security, Ministry of Justice, and the State Internet and Information Office will participate in the dialogue. The U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security and the U.S. Attorney General will co-chair the dialogue, with participation from representatives
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Intelligence Community and other agencies, for the United States. This mechanism will be used to review the timeliness and quality of responses to requests for information and assistance with respect to malicious cyber activity of concern identified by either side. As part of this mechanism, both sides agree to establish a hotline for the escalation of issues that may arise in the course of responding to such requests. Finally, both sides agree that the first
meeting of this dialogue will be held by the end of 2015, and will occur twice per year thereafter.

The fact sheet lists other very important areas for further cooperation and discussion, including Nuclear Security, Strengthening Development Cooperation, 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Food Security, Public Health and Global Health Security, and Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Response. In addition, with regards to Strengthening Bilateral Relations, China and the United States agreed specifically with regard to Military Relations:

Building on the two Memoranda of Understanding on Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) signed by the United States and China in November 2014, the two sides completed new annexes on air-to-air safety and crisis communications. The two sides committed to continue discussions on additional annexes to the Notification of Major Military Activities CBM, with the United States prioritizing completion of a mechanism for informing the other party of ballistic missile launches. The U.S. Coast Guard and the China Coast Guard have committed to pursue an arrangement whose intended purpose is equivalent to the Rules of Behavior Confidence Building Measure annex on surface-to-surface encounters in the November 2014 Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Department of Defense and the People’s Republic of China Ministry of National Defense.

In other words, in distinct contrast to Russia, the Chinese government agreed to hold periodic high level meetings at the ministerial level to discuss cyber- crime and military issues with the United States. Does this sound like a country that wants to invade other countries and follow Vladimir Putin in a military expansion?

EXIM BANK MAY RISE FROM THE DEAD THROUGH AN EXTRAORDINARY MEASURE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

On October 9, 2015, Republican House Members took a drastic measure filing a discharge petition to fast-track the EX-Im Bank bill to the floor of the US House. The EX-Im Bank provides export financing and credit terms to help US companies export products to other countries. The help provided by the EX-Im Bank is mirrored by export financing and credit terms provided by numerous foreign countries, including the EC, Japan, Korea and China.

To save the Ex-Im Bank, 50 Republicans in the House joined with almost the entire Democratic Caucus to file the discharge petition. This rarely used procedural mechanism allows Representatives in the House to bypass both committees and the leadership to call up legislation signed by a majority of the House. This is procedural measure in the House that was last executed 13 years ago and only five times in the last eight decades.

Congressman Denny Heck of Washington State that led the charge on the Democratic side and is a member of the New Democratic Coalition stated, “This is a once-in-a-generation thing.”

Since 218 members signed the petition, that means a majority of Congressmen support the bill and it should pass on October 26.

Once the Bill passes the House, however, it still has to jump over hurdles in the Senate, which has no equivalent process to quickly force a vote in the upper chamber. Although some have speculated that the Senate will not bring up the bill because Republican Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell does not personally support the bill, McConnell has also stated that he knows that a majority of the Senators that support the Ex-Im Bank have the votes to pass the bill. In fact, the passage of the TPA through the Senate happened only because Washington State Democratic Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell along with Republican Senator Lindsay Graham obtained an agreement from Mitch McConnell for a vote on the Senate floor on Ex-Im bank in exchange for their vote on TPA. Once bipartisan majorities are established in both the House and Senate, final passage should be only a matter of time.

The broader significance of the move is that dozens of House Republicans dared to try it at all and push back the conservative Republicans, who for purist free market ideological reasons have blocked the EX-Im bank.

The little-known lending agency has long supported U.S. jobs by helping companies find markets overseas, but conservatives have turned its demise into a rallying cry against corporate welfare. Jeb Hensarling, the Republican chairman of the Financial Services and Ohio Congressman, has made it a personal mission to kill the bank.

As the three Republican members that led the discharge movement, Stephen Fincher, R-Tenn., Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., and Chris Collins, R-N.Y., stated that they simply had no choice but to pursue the drastic parliamentary move:

“This Republican-led petition is a procedure to stand up to Washington’s broken system that is killing thousands of American jobs and jeopardizing thousands more. Our constituents expect us to fight for them and get the job done, but Congress has failed to even hold a vote to reform and reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank.”

Republican and Democratic Representatives have been under intense pressure from business groups complaining that the expiration of the bank’s charter has resulted in job losses for companies big and small.

It is ironic that a Congressman from Ohio, which is hurting for manufacturing and other jobs, is the one leading the charge to stop the Ex-Im Bank, which will result in thousands of jobs leaving the United States.

Because of the failure to authorize the Ex-IM Bank and its U.S.-based export credit financing, General Electric Co. stated that it would be forced to move 500 turbine manufacturing jobs to China and Europe. The failure to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank may also explain Boeing’s recent announcement to assemble airplanes in Tianjin, China.

Ideological purity, just like protectionism, destroys jobs in the United States. Just because a Conservative minority with an ideological purity agenda decides the United States should not provide such export financing does not mean that the EC, China, India, Japan, Korea and other countries will make the same decision. A decision not to authorize the Ex-Im Bank simply makes the United States not competitive with other countries. Just as US companies must meet the challenges of global competition so must the United States Government.

TRADE

WTO GIVES UNITED STATES DEADLINE TO SOLVE CVD PROBLEM IN MANY CASES AGAINST CHINA

On October 9, 2015, the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) gave the US government an April 1, 2016 deadline to comply with a WTO decision overturning 17 US countervailing duty determinations against China, including cases against Solar Cells and Solar Products, Wind Towers, Oil Country Tubular Goods, and other Steel cases. The Arbitrator specifically stated:

In the light of the … considerations relating to the quantitative and qualitative aspects of implementation in the present case, and the margin of flexibility available to the implementing member within its legal system, the arbitrator considers that the particular circumstances of this case justify a reasonable period of time for implementation close to the 15-month guideline.

The WTO overturned the Commerce Department CVD decisions on several grounds, but one of the more important was the decision/presumption that Chinese state-owned companies enterprises are “public bodies” under WTO rules. Therefore, according to Commerce, when a Chinese company purchases a raw material input from such state-owned company, by definition the product is subsidized. In contrast, the WTO ruled that the key criterion for evaluating public bodies is not state ownership but whether the entities in question have the authority to carry out governmental functions.

The WTO panel decision in its July 2014 decision found the US Commerce Department in violation of the Subsidies Agreement based on several different principles, including State-Owned Companies and the failure to consider benchmarks in China to value the subsidy. The US appealed, but the WTO Appellate Panel not only affirmed the panel report, but found many other problems with the Commerce Department determinations

On determining the time for Commerce to comply with the WTO determinations, the WTO arbitrator did not have much sympathy for the Commerce Department argument that it should be given more time to comply with the determination, stating:

It is to be recalled that the implementing member is expected to use all available flexibilities within its legal system to ensure ‘prompt compliance’ with the DSB’s recommendations and rulings. Prioritizing these investigations reflects the exercise of a flexibility that is available to the USDOC and which it is expected to utilize.

THE ONGOING STEEL CASES

Many companies have been asking me about the ongoing Steel antidumping and countervailing duty cases so this section will address the Steel cases in more detail.

THE OCTG STEEL STORY — COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE OVERTURNS COMMERCE OCTG DETERMINATION AGAINST KOREA

One of the more interesting cases is the appeal of the Commerce Department’s determination against Korea in the Oil Country Tubular Goods (“OCTG”) case. The OCTG story starts with the US OCTG industry along with the union bringing an antidumping case against China. Since Commerce does not real use real numbers in China cases, it was easy to wipe out $4 billion in Chinese imports by using import statistics in India as surrogate values and coming up with rates ranging from 32 to almost 100%. The Chinese left the US market because of the artificial antidumping rates.

The US Steel Industry and the Union assumed that US companies would get the Chinese tonnage that was blocked by the Commerce Department order and, of course, that is not what happened. Instead, OCTG producers in Korea, India, Taiwan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Thailand and Turkey replaced the Chinese. Saying that this was unfair and accusing the other companies of dumping, in 2013 the US OCTG industry and Steel Union brought another round of antidumping and countervailing duty cases against these countries.

But since the countries are market economy countries, the Commerce Department had to use real prices and costs in the countries in question to determine whether dumping is taking place. So what were the Antidumping rates in the attached February 2014 preliminary determination fact sheet, OCTG PRELIMINARY AD DETERMINATION FACT SHEET, in the new round of OCTG cases—Korea 0%, India 0% for the company that cooperated, Philippines 8.9%, Saudi Arabia 2.92%, Taiwan 0 and 2.65%, Thailand 118% because they did not cooperate, Turkey 0% and 4.87%, Ukraine 5.31%, and Vietnam 9.57%.

The OCTG case against Korea, in particular, was a very difficult problem for the US Steel industry and Union because if the 0% Korean Preliminary Determination had remained, no antidumping order would be issued against Korean OCTG and they would have been free to continue shipping substantial quantities to the US market. Moreover, the Korean producers were the ones that took most of the Chinese market share.

In looking at these rates, however, one has to keep these cases in perspective. The first OCTG case against Korea was filed in 1983 to 1984. How do I know, because the first OCTG cases were my cases as a line attorney at the US International Trade Commission. The point is that market economy companies can use computer programs to run their prices and costs and make sure they are not dumping and “dump proof” the company. Since the Korean steel companies know that they will be targeted with these cases, this is just what they did.

This is not gaming the system. The Antidumping and Countervailing are unfair trade statues, and the companies simply eliminated their unfair acts.

As a result of the February 2014 preliminary determinations, predictably the US OCTG Industry and Union were outraged and went to Congress. On June 25, 2014 at a hearing in front of the Senate Finance Committee, the most powerful trade committee in the US Congress, the Industry and Union screamed about unfairness. See http://www.finance.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=e2227102-5056-a032-5262-9d177c5f753f Move the buffering slider to minute 41 when the hearing starts. There is a recess in the hearing so you need to move the buffering slider to 1 hour 47 minutes when the hearing resumes.

During the Senate Finance Committee hearing, Senators called for aggressive trade enforcement in antidumping and countervailing duty cases, including Steel and in particular Oil Country Tubular Goods (“OCTG”), and against China. The Senators described the importance of the legislation they have introduced to stop transshipment and make sure that antidumping and countervailing duty laws are enforced.

The two most prominent witnesses at the Senate Finance Committee were Leo Gerard, International President of the United Steel Workers, and Mario Longhi, President of the United States Steel Corporation. Mr. Gerard proudly claimed at the hearing that the USW has brought antidumping and countervailing duty cases blocking billions of dollars in imports from China.

The hearing was stacked with US producers and a union complaining about China and other countries. No US importers were allowed to testify and present the other side of the argument. When Congress decides to listen to only one side of the trade argument, there is no fair and balanced portrayal of trade problems. The trade war simply gets worse and everyone loses.

At the hearing, Leo W. Gerard, International President, United Steelworkers (“USW”), stated:

USW members and non-union workers alike know firsthand the pain inflicted by foreign predatory, protectionist and unfair trade practices. In industry after industry, they have seen other nations target the U.S. market to fuel their own economic policies, to create jobs for their people and capture the dollars of our consumers. These practices have increasingly resulted in the downsizing of manufacturing and the loss of good family supportive jobs, as companies have offshored and outsourced their production.

The USW has been as successful as it can be in its efforts to counter unfair trade, but it’s a losing game. Indeed, the only way we win is by losing. Lost profits, lost jobs, closed factories, hollowed out communities – that is the price the trade laws demand to show sufficient injury to provide relief. In the year or more it takes to bring a trade case and obtain relief, foreign companies can continue to flood the market. By the time that relief may be provided, the industry is often a shadow of its former self, too many workers have lost their jobs and their families and the communities in which they live have paid a heavy, and often irrevocable, price. . . .

First, as many of the Members of the Committee know, the USW is fighting to ensure that the Department of Commerce carefully review the facts in the Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) case in which they issued a preliminary finding that imports from South Korea would not be subject to dumping margins. We believe this preliminary finding is flawed. Indeed, Senators sent a letter to the Administration asking for a careful review and that effort was mirrored by more than one-third of the House joining in that call. . . .

The second issue, and a critical one, is the issue of currency manipulation. China is the worst culprit, but other nations are following their lead. China has been able to essentially subsidize its exports and tax imports into its market through currency cheating.

Mario Longhi, President, United States Steel Corporation, stated:

. . . . The approach and manner in which foreign companies are dumping thousands of tons of products into the U.S. market leads business leaders such as me to conclude that American steel companies are being targeted for elimination. . . .

Let me illustrate for you how this harm occurs. . . . A year ago, U. S. Steel and other domestic Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) producers filed a trade case against nine countries based on the enormous 113-percent increase of imported OCTG products into this market between 2010-2012. Primarily South Korean companies are the main violators, but companies from India, Vietnam, Turkey and several other countries also dump very significant volumes. . . .

China tried to do the same thing in 2008. We fought and won an OCTG dumping case in 2009, but not before many facilities were idled, thousands of steelworkers lost their jobs, and our communities and our families sustained significant and long-lasting injury.

After we won the case, Chinese producers essentially abandoned the U.S. OCTG market, a clear sign that they could not compete when the playing field was leveled.

As the American economy and our energy demands rebounded, American steel companies spent billions of dollars to improve OCTG facilities across the country. In the past 5 years, U. S. Steel spent more than $2.1 billion across our facilities, $200 million on new facilities at our Lorain Tubular Operations in the last two years alone. However, the respite for the OCTG industry from illegally dumped products was short-lived. Foreign producers quickly seized this opportunity and began flooding our market.

The only difference between 2009 and today is that South Korean and other foreign OCTG producers are cleverer. South Korean companies are effectively targeting our market since they do not sell this product in their own home market or (in substantial volumes) to other nation. Over 98% of what is produced in South Korea is exported directly to the U.S.

Earlier this year, the Department of Commerce issued disappointing preliminary findings that failed to recognize and punish illegally dumped South Korean products. After decades of dumping practice, it appears that these companies have learned to circumvent our trade laws and illegally dump massive amounts of steel products in this market with ease and agility.

So it is not surprising that in advance of the impending final decision by the Department of Commerce, last month, the total OCTG imports hit a high of 431,866 net tons, a 77.4% percent change year/year. The South Koreans exported to the U.S. nearly 214,000 net tons of OCTG in May, an increase from the monthly average of 27,000 net tons in the prior 12 months. They are trying to dump as much product as they can before the final ruling.

The South Korean gamesmanship of our system of laws is disquieting. Their efforts are unchecked and repugnantly effective. . . .

So with enormous Congressional pressure on Commerce, in the final determination the rates for the Korean companies went to 9 to 15%. The only problem for US Steel and the Unions is that Commerce Department determinations can be appealed to the Court of International Trade. It is now clear that the only one who gamed the US trade laws was US Steel itself.

In the attached final determination, factsheet-multiple-octg-ad-cvd-final-071114, to push Korean antidumping rate up, instead of using the actual lower profit rates for Korean OCTG producers and Korean sales of other comparable steel products of about 5 to 6%, which Commerce used in the preliminary determination, Commerce used a 26.11% profit for Tenaris, SA (Tenaris), an Argentinian global producer and seller of OCTG, as described in a research paper prepared by a student at the University of Iowa School of Management. Sounds reasonable right?

On September 2, 2015, in the attached Hu Steel v. United States and US Steel et al., CIT KOREA OCTG, Judge Restani in the Court of International Trade reversed the Commerce Department’s determination in the OCTG from Korea case. Judge Restani first noted:

When using constructed value to calculate the normal value, the constructed value is to include “the actual amounts incurred and realized by the specific exporter or producer being examined . . . for selling, general, and administrative expenses, and for profits, in connection with the production and sale of a foreign like product, in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(e)(2)(A). If such data is unavailable, however, Commerce must resort to one of three alternatives for calculating an appropriate amount for selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profits:

(i) the actual amounts incurred and realized by the specific exporter or producer being examined in the investigation or review for selling, general, and administrative expenses, and for profits, in connection with the production and sale, for consumption in the foreign country, of merchandise that is in the same general category of products as the subject merchandise,

(ii) the weighted average of the actual amounts incurred and realized by exporters or producers that are subject to the investigation or review (other than the exporter or producer described in clause (i)) for selling, general, and administrative expenses, and for profits, in connection with the production and sale of a foreign like product, in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country,
or

(iii) the amounts incurred and realized for selling, general, and administrative expenses, and for profits, based on any other reasonable method, except that the amount allowed for profit may not exceed the amount normally realized by exporters or producers (other than the exporter or producer described in clause (i)) in connection with the sale, for consumption in the foreign country, of merchandise that is in the same general category of products as the subject merchandise, [i.e., what is commonly referred to as the “profit cap.”] . . . .

For the Preliminary Determination, Commerce considered three possible options for CV profit: . . . “[(1)] the 5.3% profit reflected in the audited financial statements for seven Korean OCTG producers, [(2)] the profit earned by HYSCO on its home market sales of non-OCTG pipe products, and [(3)] the 26.11% profit for Tenaris, SA (Tenaris), an Argentinian global producer and seller of OCTG,” as described in a research paper prepared by a student at the University of Iowa School of Management.

The Court noted that the domestic industry’s petition itself used a profit number of 7.19 and 7.22%

Judge Restani went to state that US Steel, in effect, gamed the system because it submitted the Tenaris number in the Iowa Student study after the preliminary determination during the final investigation in such a way that the Korean producers could not provide alternative evidence to rebut the Tenaris number:

In conclusion, the court determines that this was not a simple technical violation that can be overlooked, but rather plaintiffs were substantially prejudiced by Commerce’s acceptance and use of U.S. Steel’s untimely submitted new factual information. On remand, Commerce may simply remove this information from the record and reconsider its CV profit determination based on the information that was submitted in accordance with the regulatory deadlines.

Alternatively, Commerce must determine if and how, at this late date, the prejudice caused by accepting the Tenaris financial statement in violation of the regulations can be rectified.

In a footnote, Judge Restani also stated:

Moreover, this appears to be the first time that Commerce had relied upon a CV profit source that was not based on either production or sales in the home market. . . . The court recognizes that Commerce might have legitimate justifications for this departure, but it does not change the fact that Commerce used data that was submitted late to come to a conclusion that was seemingly at odds with its prior practice, with the result being a large increase in the respondents’ dumping margins sufficient to support an order. This is a make or break issue and Commerce should do its utmost to be fair in such circumstances.

Finally Judge Restani also reversed the Commerce Department because it refused to consider the “Profit Cap” in the statute which limits the profit amount so as not to “exceed the amount normally realized by exporters or producers (other than the exporter or producer described in clause (i)) in connection with the sale, for consumption in the foreign country . . . .” Judge Restani stated:

Even when the record evidence is deficient for the purposes of calculating the profit cap, Commerce must attempt to calculate a profit cap based on the facts otherwise available, and it may dispense with the profit cap entirely only if it provides an adequate explanation as to why the available data would render any cap based on facts available unrepresentative or inaccurate.

The use of an appropriate profit cap seems especially important in this case. The goal in calculating CV profit is to approximate the home market profit experience of the respondents. . . . The profit data imbedded in Tenaris’s financial statement does not appear to be based on any sales or production in Korea. It therefore appears to be a relatively poor surrogate for the home market experience. Additionally, record evidence suggests that Tenaris is a massive producer of OCTG with production and associated services around the world. . . . Record evidence also suggests that Tenaris’s profits are among the highest in the world and that this profit figure is due in large part to Tenaris’s sales of unique, high-end OCTG products and global services. . . .

The Korean producers, on the other hand, appear to be rather modest in comparison, both in the size of their operations and in the products and services they offer. . . . As Commerce recognized in the preamble to its own regulations, “the sales used as the basis for CV profit should not lead to irrational or unrepresentative results.” . . . It appears that dispensing with the profit cap requirement entirely in this case could run the risk that the CV profit rate will be unrepresentative of the respondents’ expected home market experience.

This case is a major defeat for the US Steel industry. We still have to wait and see what Commerce does on remand but if they do what they did in the original preliminary determination, the antidumping order will be lifted on OCTG from Korea.

WELDED LINE PIPE FROM KOREA AND TURKEY

On October , 2015, in the attached fact sheet, factsheet-multiple-welded-line-pipe-ad-cvd-final-100615, the Commerce Department announced the preliminary determination in Welded Line Pipe from Korea and Turkey. The Antidumping rates for the Korean companies range from 2.53% to 6.19%. The antidumping rates for Turkey range from 6 to 22.9%.

Commerce also terminated the Countervailing Duty investigation against Korea because it found the subsidies were de minimis.

Although there are rumbles of possible negotiations of a US China agreement on Solar Cells and Solar Product, there is no concrete evidence of an actual agreement yet.

As stated before, the real victims of US China Trade War and Antidumping and Countervailing Duty cases are upstream and downstream US producers. Of the approximately 130 antidumping and countervailing duty orders against China, approximately 80 of them are raw material inputs, such as chemicals, metals and steel.

In the Solar Cells/Solar Products case, the real victims are the upstream producers, world class US producers of polysilicon, which goes into Chinese and other solar cells. Because, as President Reagan predicted, China reacted to the US Solar Cells/Solar Products cases by bringing their own case against $2 billion in US exports of polysilicon, major US producers, such Dow and REC Silicon, are in serious trouble.

On September 23, 2015, the Montana Standard reported that REC Silicon in Moses Lake, Washington may have to close its production facility:

REC Silicon — which has a production plant near Butte — could lay off 400 workers at its plant in Moses Lake, Washington, if a snarl over Chinese-imposed tariffs isn’t resolved soon.

It’s unclear exactly how the Moses Lake layoff would affect the Butte REC plant, which employs 260 full-time workers about five miles southwest of town. But a company spokeswoman said Moses Lake will “likely” suffer the majority of cuts, if it comes to that.

The potential cuts — and possible shut-down of the Moses Lake plant — are due to a four-year solar trade dispute between China and the United States.

In the Article, Francine Sullivan, REC counsel and vice president of legal and business development, stated:

There are no confirmed layoffs in Butte. “It’s not a shut-down notice, but if the trade case continues, we may be forced to close down Moses Lake. We haven’t made a final decision about Moses Lake. . . . putting the Moses Lake plant at risk because 80 percent of the plant’s polysilicon goes to customers in China.

Tore Torvund, REC Silicon CEO stated that they were looking for a US China Solar agreement every day:

We are at a critical juncture. We are looking at this every day. If we can’t get a resolution in the short term, we will be faced with this tough decision.”

Sullivan further stated:

It’s logical that most of the costs will come out of Moses Lake. We’ll look to do anything we can to keep the plant alive.

In the attached fact sheet, PET RESIN PRELIM CHINA, the Commerce Department issued a preliminary determination in Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from China and a number of other countries. Although the antidumping rates for the other countries were in the single digits, based on surrogate values from import statistics in Thailand, the Commerce Department found antidumping rates ranging from 125.12 to 145.94% for the Chinese companies.

In deciding to use Thailand as the surrogate country, Commerce looked at a list of the following potential surrogate countries: Bulgaria, Ecuador, Romania, South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine.

For those US import companies that imported Barium Carbonate, Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide, Helical Spring Lock Washers, Polyvinyl Alcohol, and Steel Wire Garment Hangers from China during the antidumping period October 1, 2014-September 30, 2015 or if this is the First Review Investigation, for imports imported after the Commerce Department preliminary determinations in the initial investigation, the end of this month is a very important deadline. Requests have to be filed at the Commerce Department by the Chinese suppliers, the US importers and US industry by the end of this month to participate in the administrative review.

This is a very important month for US importers because administrative reviews determine how much US importers actually owe in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty cases. Generally, the US industry will request a review of all Chinese companies. If a Chinese company does not respond in the Commerce Department’s Administrative Review, its antidumping and countervailing duty rate could well go to the highest level and for certain imports the US importer will be retroactively liable for the difference plus interest.

In my experience, many US importers do not realize the significance of the administrative review investigations. They think the antidumping and countervailing duty case is over because the initial investigation is over. Many importers are blindsided because their Chinese supplier did not respond in the administrative review, and the US importers find themselves liable for millions of dollars in retroactive liability. In the recent Solar Cells 2012-2013 final review determination, for example, the following Chinese companies were determined to no longer be eligible for a separate antidumping rate and to have the PRC antidumping rate of 238.95%:

On July 30, 2015, OFAC issued an Advisory, entitled “Obfuscation of Critical Information in Financial and Trade Transactions Involving the Crimea Region of Ukraine,” to call attention to practices that have been used to circumvent or evade the Crimean sanctions. While billed as an “Advisory,” the agency’s release stands as a warning to the financial services and international trade sectors of their obligation to implement adequate controls to guard against such evasive practices and ensure compliance with their obligations under the Crimean sanctions.

On May 21, 2015, the Commerce Department filed changes to the export rules to allow unlicensed delivery of Internet technology to Crimea region of Ukraine, saying the change will allow the Crimean people to reclaim the narrative of daily life from their Russian occupants. Under a final rule, which is attached to my blog, www.uschinatradewar.com, individuals and companies may deliver source code and technology for “instant messaging, chat and email, social networking” and other programs to the region without first retaining a license from the federal government, according to Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security.

Commerce stated:

“Facilitating such Internet-based communication with the people located in the Crimea region of Ukraine is in the United States’ national security and foreign policy interests because it helps the people of the Crimea region of Ukraine communicate with the outside world.”

On September 3, 2014, I spoke in Vancouver Canada on the US Sanctions against Russia, which are substantial, at an event sponsored by Deloitte Tax Law and the Canadian, Eurasian and Russian Business Association (“CERBA”). Attached to my blog are copies of the PowerPoint or the speech and a description of our Russian/Ukrainian/Latvian Trade Practice for US importers and exporters. In addition, the blog describes the various sanctions in effect against Russia.

The sanctions will eventually increase more with the Congressional passage of the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which is attached to my blog, which President Obama signed into law on December 19, 2014. Although the law provides for additional sanctions if warranted, at the time of the signing, the White House stated:

“At this time, the Administration does not intend to impose sanctions under this law, but the Act gives the Administration additional authorities that could be utilized, if circumstances warranted.”

The law provides additional military and economic assistance to Ukraine. According to the White House, instead of pursuing further sanctions under the law, the administration plans to continue collaborating with its allies to respond to developments in Ukraine and adjust its sanctions based on Russia’s actions. Apparently the Administration wants its sanctions to parallel those of the EU. As President Obama stated:

“We again call on Russia to end its occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea, cease support to separatists in eastern Ukraine, and implement the obligations it signed up to under the Minsk agreements.”

Russia, however responded in defiance with President Putin blasting the sanctions and a December 20th Russian ministry statement spoke of possible retaliation.

One day after signing this bill into law, the President issued an Executive Order “Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Crimea Region of Ukraine” (the “Crimea-related Executive Order”). President Obama described the new sanctions in a letter issued by the White House as blocking:

New investments by U.S. persons in the Crimea region of Ukraine

Importation of goods, services, or technology into the United States from the Crimea region of Ukraine

Exportation, re-exportation, sale, or supply of goods, services, or technology from the United States or by a U.S. person to the Crimea region of Ukraine

The facilitation of any such transactions.

The Crimea-related Executive Order also contains a complicated asset-blocking feature. Pursuant to this order, property and interests in property of any person may be blocked if determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, that the person is operating in Crimea or involved in other activity in Crimea.

The EU has also issued sanctions prohibiting imports of goods originating in Crimea or Sevastopol, and providing financing or financial assistance, as well as insurance and reinsurance related to the import of such goods. In addition, the EU is blocking all foreign investment in Crimea or Sevastopol.

Thus any US, Canadian or EU party involved in commercial dealings with parties in Crimea or Sevastopol must undertake substantial due diligence to make sure that no regulations in the US or EU are being violated.

CUSTOMS, LACEY ACT VIOLATIONS AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCES THAT LUMBER LIQUIDATORS PLEADS GUILTY TO CUSTOMS AND LACEY ACT VIOLATIONS AND AGREES TO PAY MORE THAN $13 MILLION IN FINES

On October 22, 2015, the Justice Department announced that Lumber Liquidators has pled guilty to a felony conviction for import of illegal timber from China and agreed to pay at $13 million penalty, the largest fine ever under the Lacey Act. In the attached announcement, Lumber Liquidators Inc. Pleads Guilty to Environmental Crimes and Agrees to, the Justice Department states:

Virginia-based hardwood flooring retailer Lumber Liquidators Inc. pleaded guilty today in federal court in Norfolk, Virginia, to environmental crimes related to its illegal importation of hardwood flooring, much of which was manufactured in China from timber that had been illegally logged in far eastern Russia, in the habitat of the last remaining Siberian tigers and Amur leopards in the world. . . .

Lumber Liquidators was charged earlier this month in the Eastern District of Virginia with one felony count of importing goods through false statements and four misdemeanor violations of the Lacey Act, which makes it a crime to import timber that was taken in violation of the laws of a foreign country and to transport falsely-labeled timber across international borders into the United States. The charges describe Lumber Liquidators’ use of timber that was illegally logged in Far East Russia, as well as false statements on Lacey Act declarations which obfuscated the true species and source of the timber. This is the first felony conviction related to the import or use of illegal timber and the largest criminal fine ever under the Lacey Act.

“Lumber Liquidators’ race to profit resulted in the plundering of forests and wildlife habitat that, if continued, could spell the end of the Siberian tiger,” said Assistant Attorney General John C. Cruden for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “Lumber Liquidators knew it had a duty to follow the law, and instead it flouted the letter and spirit of the Lacey Act, ignoring its own red flags that its products likely came from illegally harvested timber, all at the expense of law abiding competitors. Under this plea agreement, Lumber Liquidators will pay a multi-million dollar penalty, forfeit millions in assets, and must adhere to a rigorous compliance program. We hope this sends a strong message that we will not tolerate such abuses of U.S. laws that protect and preserve the world’s endangered plant and animal species.” . . .

“Companies knowingly accepting illegally sourced materials need to recognize there are far-reaching consequences to their actions,” said Special Agent in Charge Clark E. Settles of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Washington, D.C. “In this case, in addition to violating U.S. customs law, Lumber Liquidators contributed to the potential eradication of an endangered species simply to increase profit margins.” . . . .

According to a joint statement of facts filed with the court, from 2010 to 2013, Lumber Liquidators repeatedly failed to follow its own internal procedures and failed to take action on self-identified “red flags.” Those red flags included imports from high risk countries, imports of high risk species, imports from suppliers who were unable to provide documentation of legal harvest and imports from suppliers who provided false information about their products. Despite internal warnings of risk and noncompliance, very little changed at Lumber Liquidators.

For example, Lumber Liquidators employees were aware that timber from the Russian Far East was considered, within the flooring industry and within Lumber Liquidators, to carry a high risk of being illegally sourced due to corruption and illegal harvesting in that remote region. Despite the risk of illegality, Lumber Liquidators increased its purchases from Chinese manufacturers using timber sourced in the Russian Far East. . . .

Under the plea agreement, Lumber Liquidators will pay $13.15 million, including $7.8 million in criminal fines, $969,175 in criminal forfeiture and more than $1.23 million in community service payments. Lumber Liquidators has also agreed to a five year term of organizational probation and mandatory implementation of a government-approved environmental compliance plan and independent audits. In addition, the company will pay more than $3.15 million in cash through a related civil forfeiture. The more than $13.15 million dollar penalty is the largest financial penalty for timber trafficking under the Lacey Act and one of the largest Lacey Act penalties ever.

IP/PATENT AND 337 CASES

NEW PATENT AND TRADEMARK COMPLAINTS AGAINST CHINESE, HONG KONG AND TAIWAN COMPANIES

A decade after the heyday of “reverse mergers” of Chinese companies who entered the U.S. securities market through U.S. registered companies, some of these deals are beginning to unravel. There are recent federal enforcement actions and prosecution of some key persons who arranged such deals. The U.S. government alleges that the participants violated U.S. securities law by engaging in practices that misrepresented the actual value of the company’s stocks and personally profiting from such practices.

On September 10, 2015, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan announced criminal charges against Benjamin Wey, a New York-based financier.[1] Wey gained a reputation for orchestrating reverse mergers of Chinese companies with publicly traded companies in the United States in order to sell securities in the United States. The charges against Wey include wire fraud, securities fraud, and money laundering. Wey allegedly conspired with family members and a Swiss stock broker to control large blocks of stocks in companies that he helped to engage in reverse mergers from 2007 to 2011. He allegedly manipulated the prices of those stocks in order to sell his shares at a significant profit. U.S. federal agents arrested Wey during a dawn raid on his home, and he posted bail for $10 million, secured in part by his $2 million house.

Also on September 10, 2015, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued an order against Shawn A. Becker, an unlicensed broker who participated in the reverse merger of several Chinese firms (China Auto Logistics Inc., Guanwei Recycling Corp., and Kandi Technologies Corp.).[2] These companies entered the U.S. securities market through an engineered acquisition of a U.S. shell company. Becker allegedly drove up the closing price of the company’s unregistered stocks (a practice called, “marking the close”), in order to induce investors to purchase the stocks from 2009 to 2012.

Becker allegedly profited from the arrangement by taking commission from the sales of the pink-sheet stocks, while the principals of the shell company profited by offloading their shares in the company.[3] Under the terms of Becker’s settlement and the S.E.C. order, he is barred from participating in brokerage activities. In order to apply to engage in brokerage services, he would first need to disgorge profits and satisfy any arbitral awards against him as a result of his activities.

There are also developments involving allegations of corporate misgovernance by some companies. On September 30, 2015, Focus Media of Shanghai, a major Chinese digital display advertising company, agreed to a $55.6 million settlement with the SEC.[4] The U.S. government alleges that Focus Media failed to disclose the fact that the company sold shares in a subsidiary to company insiders at a favorable price several months before they resold these shares to a private equity firm at six times the previous price. The investigation allegedly uncovered deficiencies in the company’s books and records for documentation regarding these transactions. It appears that the circumstances of the transactions may not have been properly disclosed to the company’s board of directors. SEC thus accused Focus Media and its Chief Executive Officer, Jason Jiang, with providing materially inaccurate information to the board of directors regarding the transactions and with failure to maintain books and records as required by securities law. Focus Media agreed to pay $34.6 million in penalties. Jiang agreed to pay $21 million in penalties, disgorgement of profits, and pre-judgment interest. The SEC order further notes that Jiang’s liability is a personal debt that is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Like Focus Media, some other companies also face accusations that they did not properly maintain books and records. In a recently filed case in the Delaware Court of Chancery, stockholders allege that China Integrated Energy, a Delaware company that registered its common stock with the SEC in 1999, has failed to make required annual and periodic financial disclosures for the years 2012 through 2015.[5] In 2014, the company filed an annual Form 10-K statement that disclosed the fact that the company’s shares fell from $8.30 per share in 2010 to $0.80 per share in 2011. The plaintiffs seek access to the compa